Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Building Societies

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he plans to have early discussions with the Building Societies Association.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): My Department is in regular contact with the Building Societies Association, and I am myself always ready to meet it whenever the need arises.

Mr. McCrindle: Does the Secretary of State agree that 1977 will be a very difficult year for anyone seeking a mortgage? Does he further agree that that is largely because of the Government's general policy on interest rates and the fact that they have been leaning on the building societies to keep their borrowing rates below those of other competitive forms of saving? Can he give any hope of a change in policy? Indeed, can he give any hope to young people seeking to buy a house for the first time in 1977?

Mr. Shore: I am sure that 1977 will be a difficult year in terms of mortgage money. What we are all concerned and uncertain about is how difficult it will be. When Questions were addressed to me a month ago about building society interest rates and interest rates generally, the feeling was more pessimistic than it is today. Without further evidence, I should not wish to draw any conclusions about the course of interest rates in the months ahead. I must emphasise that it is for the building societies to judge their requirements against the many different purposes that they seek to serve.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Did the Secretary of State check the figure mentioned last month—that only 6 per cent. of mortgages were going towards the purchase of houses costing less than £6,000? As the poorer half of the community cannot obtain mortgages, what proposals will he make to the building societies? Why not get them to lend 10 per cent. of their funds at their normal rates of lending to local authorities so that they in turn can make loans available, particularly as in the last two years councils have had three cuts in the amounts that they can lend?

Mr. Shore: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern about this matter. We have had a number of exchanges on it. I am in close touch with the building societies on the general question of replacement lending for the cuts in local authority mortgage lending that we have had to impose. Within that general effort, we shall be directing particular attention to the problems that my hon. Friend has often raised of red-lining and blue-zoning.

Mr. Rossi: Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether the Government are giving any support to the proposals for the nationalisation or State control of the building societies?

Mr. Shore: I have not yet had to consider proposals for such changes. If and when such proposals come before me, I shall give them the proper attention and study that they deserve.

Mr. George Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in recent months the flow of funds into the building societies has increased considerably? In fact, the Chairman of the Nationwide Building Society commented on that matter within recent hours. In those circumstances, would it not be appropriate for the building societies to be pressed to make greater funds available through local authorities for the purchase of low-cost property, which is at present deteriorating and which will no longer be available on the market unless funds are made available?

Mr. Shore: I am not sure that I can confirm my hon. Friend's comment about the general state of the building societies' reserves. Taking the building societies as a whole, my impression was that


liquidity had been under some pressure, reflecting the falling inflow of the last two months. There may be special reasons involved in that.
As regards pressing and talking to the building societies about making funds available to replace local authority lending, that is very much in my mind and in the minds of the building societies. Indeed, we are discussing these matters.

Mr. Gray: When the Secretary of State next meets the Building Societies Association, will he express the concern felt in many rural areas that building societies are prepared to accept investment from but not necessarily to give assistance to borrowers in those areas? Will he suggest that it would be in the interests of the prestige of the building societies to make abundantly clear to potential investors the areas where they are not prepared to give assistance?

Mr. Shore: I note what the hon. Gentleman said. I have not had that point drawn to my attention before, but I am grateful to him for it. I shall see that the matter is pursued further with the building societies.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we continue, I ask right hon. and hon. Members to do me the great favour of trying to make both supplementary questions and answers shorter.

Bottles

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage the sale of bottles which are returnable, rather than disposable bottles, particularly in areas such as national parks.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): The Waste Management Advisory Council is still studying the case for extending the use of returnable bottles.

Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that many supermarkets are putting a great deal of pressure on manufacturers to go for non-returnable bottles? Is he further aware that the summits of many of Britain's most attractive mountains are disfigured by the number of bottles and tin cans that litter them?

Mr. Marks: Yes. Yesterday I met the staff of the Countryside Commission. They pointed out that much of the litter is on the higher ranges in the national parks, not in the valleys, and suggested that climbers particularly ought to carry down as well as take up their litter. We want to reduce litter, particularly in areas such as national parks, but people seem to throw away just as many returnable as non-returnable bottles.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Does the Minister not agree that one of the problems is to maintain products offered in shops at low prices and that the consumer advantage of not having to pay a deposit must weigh heavily with the Waste Management Advisory Council in its consideration of the matter?

Mr. Marks: There is an argument that there is a material saving in using the glass returnable bottles but I appreciate that supermarkets with low overheads may feel that using returnable bottles will increase their overheads.

Highcliffe Castle

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his latest discussion with the Dorset County Council and Christchurch Council on the future of Highcliffe Castle.

Mr. Marks: I have had no discussions with the local authorities since the compulsory purchase order was confirmed last year.

Mr. Adley: Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents are grateful to him and his predecessors for the help that enabled the local authority to acquire this property? Is he aware of the concern lest the local authority itself takes any action that hinders the wishes of the residents for the preservation of the property? Will he consider sending someone from his Department to Highcliffe to arrange a meeting with local people to see whether a plan can be drawn up that marries the wishes of all?

Mr. Marks: The borough council is now the owner of the site and we should wait until we receive its proposals for protecting and perhaps improving the castle before we take any action. I shall consider the possibility of arranging a


meeting of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Newton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is yet in a position to announce any conclusions from the process of consultation on the Layfield Report on Local Government Finance.

Mr. Shore: We are pressing ahead with our studies of Layfield and considering carefully the views put to us by local government and other interested organisations. Decisions will be announced as soon as practicable.

Mr. Newton: Is the Secretary of State aware that this week the Essex County Council proposed a rate increase of nearly 20 per cent. together with substantial reductions in services and a reduction of 2,000 or more in staff? Does he agree that, apart from the hardship, this will cause a significant further erosion in confidence in the rating system? Does he not agree, therefore, that his thoughts on the Layfield Report are urgently required?

Mr. Shore: It is not for me to comment upon the individual circumstances of councils. They are responsible to their own electorates for what they do. I am, of course, aware that there are a number of problems that have been discussed in the House in the context of this year's rate support grant. Solutions could be found in the follow-up to the Layfield Report, which we are still studying.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the whole issue of the implementation of the recommendations of Layfield can be seen and discussed adequately only in relation to regional policy? When can we have a debate on that subject?

Mr. Shore: There could be some relevance between these two matters. The possibility of a debate on the Green Paper is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Michael Morris: As the Layfield Report called for local responsibility, will the Secretary of State explain what is holding up his publishing the names of those local authorities that have overspent in the current year?

Mr. Shore: To the best of my knowledge I am not holding up any such publication. This is something which is done by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy based on CIPFA—Department of the Environment returns. I shall look into the matter to see whether we can help.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that over the years there have been constant arguments about the percentage level of rates as a proportion of average wages and that over the past 20 years there has been little variation? Does he not agree that the Labour movement—and my right hon. Friend is in the Cabinet—believes in the thesis that rates provide services for the working class? Does he not agree that if rates were not paid these services would not be available to those sections of the community?

Mr. Shore: I have no doubt that provision through the rate support grant and rates is an important part of the local government financial system. I have no doubt that our system is of benefit to all our communities and particularly, because of the needs element in the rate support grant, to the communities which are most vulnerable and in greatest need. This is a system that we should not lightly discard, which the Opposition have apparently agreed to do by threatening to abandon the whole domestic rating system.

Mr. Heseltine: Does not the Secretary of State understand that his party has been in power for three years and is responsible for yet another massive increase in rates next year? It is unsatisfactory for him to say that he is not prepared to give a date for the formulation of his conclusions on Layfield.

Mr. Shore: That is not a very good point. As the hon. Gentleman should know and as his predecessor would certainly have known, we asked for comments on Layfield to come in by the end of November. In the last six weeks we have seen a considerable volume of evidence from people who have been consulted. I cannot have it said that we are being sluggardly or dilatory in our consideration of Layfield. We shall put forward our proposals when we have considered what the many interested and expert people have had to say.

Inner London

Mr. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to check the continuing decline in the population and the consequent loss in job opportunities in inner London.

Mr. Shore: The Government are keenly concerned at the loss of jobs in inner London. I am considering the problem further as part of the Government's review of inner city areas.

Mr. Baker: Is the Secretary of State aware that the population of London is declining by 100,000 a year and that job opportunities in London are being reduced by 60,000 a year? Is he aware that in manufacturing the job loss in London is seven times the national average and in office work nine times the national average? In order to arrest that decline, will he abolish the need for industrial development certificates and office development permits?

Mr. Shore: I am aware of the figures. We are considering them in our general concern about the trends that have established themselves strongly in the last few years in East London. We are considering what policies might be used to arrest this trend and to reverse it in the inner Cities Study. I made a statement on dockland before the Summer Recess and I announced then that in terms of IDCs the dockland area would in future be treated on the level with new and expanding towns in the South-East.

Mr. Cartwright: Will my right hon. Friend seek to persuade his colleagues to re-examine some of the proposals for the dispersal of jobs from London, in particular the relocation of the Government Chemist's office in Cumbria? Does he not agree that that cannot be justified on operational grounds and simply worsens the unemployment problem in London?

Mr. Shore: I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestions, but it would be wrong to anticipate any general considerations and conclusions that we may reach in the context of the Inner London Study.

Mr. Heseltine: The Secretary of State is now considering Layfield, housing and

inner London. Does he have any views about anything?

Mr Shore: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point, but there it is. Layfield was set up with the general acclaim of the House about two years ago. There are 5 million words of evidence, apart from the report itself, which is enormous. Other major studies have been put in hand. I have been associated with the one on inner city areas. I am sure that that will be brought to a rapid conclusion and that we shall see some action on it. We shall proceed as quickly as we can on the others.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Minister accept that another way of stopping the decline in the population of inner London would be to stop pulling down houses still fit for habitation? Will he intercede with the Lambeth Borough Council, which this morning had started to pull down houses in St. Agnes Place, Lambeth, and has been stopped only by an injunction? That is a respect in which the Secretary of State can take immediate action. Will he do so in this immediate situation?

Mr. Shore: I should certainly need to check whether I have powers in that matter such as the hon. Gentleman suggests. The policy that we are pursuing is definitely in favour of rehabilitation rather than the older style of large-scale urban redevelopment schemes. That is now very firmly established in the minds of authorities generally. However, in any particular situation—I emphasise the particular local situation—obviously we must look at all the factors involved. Therefore, it would be wrong to move, as it were, from a general statement of policy to application in a particular circumstance of a particular authority.

Mr. Christoper Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not so much views that we want but action? Is he aware that South-East London used to be a major manufacturing centre and that it is now in a worse position than many of the assisted areas in other parts of the country? As merely one suggestion for saving a bit of public money, may I suggest that he abolishes the Location of Offices Bureau?

Mr. Shore: The rôle of the Location of Offices Bureau is certainly something


that I shall be—[HON. MEMBERS: "Looking at"?] In any serious policy to help to reverse the trend in London, very many different strands have to come together, and they have to be looked at together, I shall have something to say about that, too, at the appropriate time.

Thermal Insulation

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he is making in promoting energy conservation by improved standards of thermal insulation for buildings in the private and public sectors.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): We have published informal proposals for standards in most buildings not already covered. The question of further regulations is being considered in the light of the comments we have received from the many interests concerned.

Mr. Rost: These improved regulations have been considered for months. When shall we get them? Is not the failure to introduce improved thermal insulation standards, as well as the Governmnt's failure to provide incentives for thermal insulation, causing unnecessary hardship to many thousands of low income families, particularly elderly people, who are having to pay unnecessarily high electricity heating bills? Would it not be a saving of public funds to provide grants and incentives for insulation rather than to use the social security system for paying their heating bills?

Mr. Freeson: I think that the hon. Gentleman has the basis of his supplementary question a little inaccurate.

Mr. Rost: No.

Mr. Freeson: The informal proposals that have been the subject of consultation in recent months have not related to dwellings, which have already been the subject of building regulations as recently as 1975. They relate to most other kinds of buildings, so the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question does not arise on this Question.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if we were to charge an economic price for fuel, most people's fuel bills would be astronomical unless we overhauled our housing standards urgently

to prevent heat loss? Will he ensure that the housing regulations do not prevent local authorities from introducing really efficient forms of insulation, including double glazing, double doors and all the other necessary appurtenances?

Mr. Freeson: The thermal standards laid down in the building regulations as from 1975 do not relate to double glazing. It is a matter for local authority decision in most instances whether to introduce these improvements as part of the general management of properties.
I should also say that the building regulations as revised in 1975 cannot possibly of themselves tackle the problems that arise for many of the kinds of families, to which my right hon. Friend has rightly referred, who live in existing properties, many of them old, pre-1919 properties. They can relate only to properties proposed for construction as from now onwards. Other measures must be taken. I do not think that it would be helpful merely to single out parcular kinds of insulation or double glazing. We must look at the condition of properties as a whole, at insulation, heating systems and draught-proofing installations of various kinds, in order to improve conditions for the people concerned.

Contractors (Tax Certificates)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment under what authority the Property Services Agency informed the National Federation of Building Trades Employers that it will only consider tenders from those contractors who hold a valid tax certificate at the time of tender; and why he is discriminating against sub-contractors who do not hold the certificate in this way.

Mr. Marks: The Property Services Agency has made clear that it is prepared to employ a contractor or subcontractor who does not hold a tax certificate but only if it is a genuine firm with a good reason for not holding a certificate.

Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is not good enough? First, it has not been true until this moment, when he said what he said. Secondly, what does he mean by


"genuine" firms which have a good reason for not holding a certificate? The Minister's colleague, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong), told me only this morning that there would be no discrimination against contractors who did not hold certificates. Will the Minister make it clear throughout the whole public sector and the Government that this is to be so?

Mr. Marks: I have made it clear to the National Federation of Building Trades Employers that the contractors are not refused, and, in fact, the form that they are sent if they wish to submit tenders includes provision for stating the fact that they may not, for a number of reasons, have tax certificates. However, we shall not employ firms which are on the "lump", or fly-by-night firms, or anything of that category.

Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that on the Labour Benches and certainly among building trade unions his statement will be very widely welcomed? Is he aware that the problem in the construction industry in the past has been that we have had these fly-by-night subcontractors and that all sorts of terrible problems have arisen from using "lump" contractors? The Government should be congratulated on the stand that they have taken on this matter.

Mr. Marks: I think that my hon. Friend has given the reasons why this was laid down in the Finance Act 1975. Although the Property Services Agency is a Department of the Crown and is exempted from the Act, we try to carry out the spirit of the Act.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek the earliest possible opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

House Building

Mr. Ovenden: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of housing starts in the public sector for 1977.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest housing statistics both in the public and private sectors.

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he remains ratified with the outlook for private sector house building during 1977.

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding housing construction.

Mr Durant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his forecast of public and private housing starts in January to March 1977.

Mr. Freeson: There were 164,200 housing starts and 149,600 completions in the public sector in Great Britain for the first 11 months of 1976, and 147,300 starts and 138,500 completions in the private sector. Those figures show increases over the levels of house building achieved in the same 11 months of 1975. In 1977 the public sector programme will be running somewhat below the 1976 level. There has been some improvement in the past few weeks in the general economic prospects for 1977, and I hope that this will continue and strengthen. This will of course help private house building as well as other sectors of the economy.

Mr. Ovenden: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, even though he has not given us the figures for 1977 public sector starts. Will he indicate what proportion of the public sector starts for 1977 will be in so-called stress areas, and how many will be left over for the less favoured areas? Is he aware that in many so-called non-stress areas there are very long housing waiting lists, which include hundreds of families in desperate housing need? What hope do they have of decent housing under his present policy?

Mr. Freeson: It is a little difficult to forecast for 1977 what the breakdown will be between housing starts in the priority areas which have been listed and in the other, non-priority, areas, and I should have to check what we have estimated the position provisionally to be. If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall write to him on that point.
Concerning the general position, all of the priority areas listed can assume that their programmes as proposed will be substantially approved. We cannot be absolutely sure on every particular


scheme, but that will be the general position.
Concerning other areas, we shall seek wherever possible to give priority to pockets of stress and pressure in areas which have not been put in the general list of priorities, although again I hope to be able to assist the kind of families to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the sunshine talk about the general improvement in the economy is not much good when set against the backcloth of restrictions and moratoria arising from the mini-Budget of 22nd December? As my right hon. Friend knows, pipe workers and manufacturing workers of all kinds who produce essential goods for building houses are being thrown out of work as a result of public expenditure cuts in housing and other forms of moratoria. Will my right hon. Friend not merely talk about the improvement in the economy but give housing priority over and above some other less essential services to ensure that manufacturing jobs are not placed at risk as they are at present?

Mr. Freeson: Generally speaking, I take the description that my hon. Friend has given of the consequences of cuts in public expenditure in various capital investment projects that involve building workers. It still remains the position that, within the general constraints and cutbacks in public expenditure, housing has maintained a priority. Whatever else has been said about the consequences of the moratorium to which my hon. Friend referred and which arose from the December announcement, housing was not included although other building works were.

Mr. Durant: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the problems of the construction industry and the large number of bankruptcies now taking place? Is he further aware that he should consider persuading the Chancellor of the Exchequer to shift the emphasis of the cuts to current expenditure and not so much in respect of capital expenditure, which he has already mentioned?

Mr. Freeson: That is a view that has been put forward from a number of quarters. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will expect me to announce

today any changes in the decisions that we made and that were announced on behalf of the Government by the Chancellor in December. Those decisions stand.

Mr. Watkinson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in both the public and private sectors the level of interest rates generally is of pivotal importance? Does he accept that interest rates are unnecessarily high and that he should use all his abilities to persuade the Chancellor, for the sake of housing at least, to bring down their level?

Mr. Freeson: I certainly agree that this is a matter of central importance. I do not think that it would be a question of seeking to review and reduce interest rates merely for the benefit of housing construction. Whatever my particular interest may be ministerially, it is an important matter for the general economic activity of the country. As for the burden of my hon. Friend's question, I must say that it should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than to me.

Mr. Rossi: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, despite the figures he has given us so optimistically, the latest figures published by his Department show an alarming decline in the past three months? For example, in the public sector there was a 26 per cent. decline in the number of starts compared with the equivalent period last year and a 14 per cent. decline in the number of starts in the private sector. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the housing construction industry does not share his complacency?

Mr. Freeson: Nor do I share any complacency in this matter. It is correct that the figures we published ourselves showed declines in starts in recent months both in the public and private sectors. In the public sector that may be due largely to the feed-through of the temporary halt when the July cuts were announced and while we were preparing to introduce a control system, which had to be introduced in the early part of September. There will be a feed-through of figures as a result of the cut-back. Nevertheless, it remains true, whatever may be the decline in recent months, that the total figures for 1976 will be an increase over


1975, as will be shown when the final figures for the year are published.

Housing Finance Review

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the outcome of his Department's review of housing finance.

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to publish the conclusions of his Housing Policy Review.

Mr. Shore: No, Sir, but we will publish proposals as soon as we have completed our study of the complex and detailed issues involved.

Mr. Forman: Is that not just another example of the right hon. Gentleman's sluggardly—to use his word—consideration of these matters? Will he kindly get a move on? When he does come to formulate his policy proposals, will he bear in mind that average council rents now account for only 7 per cent. of the average manual wage? Will he be prepared to adjust them upwards slowly, and perhaps in conjunction with the Chancellor's next round of direct taxation cuts?

Mr. Shore: Of all the issues that face us—there are many and they are complex—perhaps housing policy is the one that repays some serious prior thought. If I wanted to look for a monument to mark impetuous and unwise legislation in this area, I should point to the Housing Finance Act 1972, the last major piece of Conservative legislation in this sector.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when the proposals are considered he will consider them in the context of investment patterns? Is he aware that house prices have risen eight times since the war whereas share prices have risen only three times since 1935? Will he consider whether that is a consequence of the highly preferential subsidy terms for owner-occupiers, which have diverted investment to provide housing from the direction of industry generally?

Mr. Shore: As my hon. Friend suggests, there is a connection between what I think is generally accepted as a deliberately favourable tax régime and house prices. That is a matter on which evidence has

been taken and on which we want to form a view. In the context of housing policy we must consider not only current housing expenditure, which is certainly very high, but investment and the mix of investment as a whole.

Mr. MacGregor: On the contrary, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the increase in interest rates has meant that very many owner-occupiers are now facing enormous difficulties, to the extent that many mortgagors would have been entitled to rent rebate if they had been in the rented sector, while at the same time many local authorities believe that it would be more cost-effective for them to concentrate a good deal more of their local authority money on mortgage lending? In his review will the right hon. Gentleman concentrate on giving priority to the owner-occupied sector?

Mr. Shore: I want to give proper consideration to the owner-occupied sector. I believe that the long-term trend is towards a considerable and, in my view, beneficial growth of owner-occupation in the country as a whole. As for interest rates generally, I am aware that owner-occupiers have had to face the relatively recent increase in building society rates. I remind the hon. Gentleman that interest rates were 11 per cent. when the Government came to power in March 1974. In spite of all the storms, which have been pretty fierce over the past two and a half years, we have managed even at the worst to keep to a 12¼ per cent, interest rate. As the House knows, that rate was reached some months ago.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my right hon. Friend not accept the advice from the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) but confirm that the average subsidy for council tenants is £174 and the average subsidy for owner-occupiers is £170, the former including extra expenditure on items such as advice centres, planning and related matters? Secondly, will he continue to support Labour Party policy to maintain subsidy for both sectors except for the very wealthiest of house buyers?

Mr. Shore: I certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that I think he wants from me—namely, that I have the interests of both sectors very much in mind. I am aware, as the whole House should


be, that both owner-occupiers and council tenants are in receipt of different forms of tax support, tax subsidy or tax concession. In my view, we should be unwise if in our considerations we excluded one half of the problem from the other. We must constantly keep them in mind together.

Mr. Heseltine: To bring the right hon. Gentleman back to reality, does he not now appreciate that as a result of these policies we now have more empty houses than for over a decade? The only urgent priority that he should observe relates to his own position.

Mr. Shore: I must remind the hon. Gentleman, who appears to be a little short on memory, that when Labour came to power we inherited a total collapse in the public and private sectors, a mortgage famine, and an interest rate of 11 per cent. Whatever else we have done, we have considerably improved the situation that we found, despite the far greater difficulties that we have faced.

Rate Support Grant

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he is having with local authorities about the future redistribution of the rate support grant.

Mr. Shore: Official level discussions are continuing with the local authority associations on methods of needs assessment for possible application in 1978–79. The issues will be discussed at the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance at an early meeting this year.

Mr. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my local authority, the West Sussex County Council, which has always been a relatively low-spending, low-rated authority, finds that its rate support grant, which this year is 55 per cent. of current expenditure, will fall to about 45 per cent. in the year ahead? The message seems to be that the less we spend, the lower proportionately the rate support grant becomes. Will the Government give a firm assurance that those authorities which do what the Government ask by making cuts are not then hit by the Government next year?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman grossly exaggerates the effect, as he sees it, on particular authorities which "over-

spend". Rate support grant is based on resources available, plus an assessment of need as impartially as we can make it. If the combination of those two elements results in the contribution from the Government being lower this year than last, Conservative Members cannot complain on that score because they have urged me to cut the figure by a far greater amount; indeed, they have complained that the rate support grant was too generous. Therefore, Conservative Members should not complain that we are treating any authority with deliberate severity. They must look carefully at the mixture of resources and needs in their areas and compare them with those of other areas.

Mr. Hardy: In these discussions has any local authority mentioned the Conservative policy of abolishing the domestic rate? Will my right hon. Friend seek details of that policy, satisfy himself that industry will not face hefty extra burdens, and ensure that there will be no extra growth in bureaucracy?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend opens up the possibility of a fruitful competition between the two Front Benches. I hope to beat the Opposition Front Bench in producing my proposals for changes in rate support grant before the Tories do anything to close the enormous gap in their policy, by which they hope to abolish the domestic rate system and yet turn down local income tax so that there remains nothing in the middle.

Water and Sewerage Rates

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to lessen the impact of high water and sewerage rates on those with very low incomes who qualify for ordinary rate rebates.

Mr. Marks: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave him on 9th December.

Mr. Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is quite illogical—although I exempt my hon. Friend from any part in this—to tie water and sewerage charges to rateable value? Is my hon. Friend not aware that many elderly, single householders who live in high-rated properties will face great difficulty in meeting the new charges? Is this not a matter in which he should plan to move clear away


from rates, dealing with it on a par with some other criteria?

Mr. Marks: There are a number of changes that I should like to make in water legislation, but at present I have no powers to make the rebate system apply to water charges. Some water authorities are using rates as only part of the charge.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: May we take it that the Minister and his colleagues will vote against the Water Charges Equalisation Bill, which will add a burden of £4 million in the Thames Water Authority area and £1 million in the North-West without giving rebates?

Mr. Marks: Not at all. People on low incomes in other parts of the country are paying up to 80 per cent. more than is paid by the average person in the Thames area. I trust that the Water Charges Equalisation Bill will be put before the House at an early date and that we shall bring forward proposals for further legislation on water by means of a White Paper within the next month or so.

Mr. Roderick: Will the Minister remind the Opposition that this is only a partial measure to make up for the loss in rate support grant following the policies of the Tory Government? Are the Opposition not aware that the system introduced by the Tory Government led to a vast increase in water charges in many parts of the country?

Mr. Marks: Yes, I shall be happy to remind hon. Gentlemen of those factors.

Water Authorities

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with the water authorities, the associated industries and the trade unions, before he instructed the water authorities to stop all new work; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marks: For obvious reasons there was no question of advance consultation on the matters contained in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's statement of 15th December. But there have subsequently been detailed discussions with the water authorities, with representatives of trade associations and trade unions concerned, and with individual hon.

Members. The six-month moratorium on new construction work will inevitably cause real difficulties in a number of areas, but I am exploring what scope there may be for mitigating some of the more serious effects.

Mr. Spriggs: Is my hon. Friend aware that many participants came away from the meeting with his Department dissatisfied with the answers they were given? In view of that dissatisfaction, will he arrange for meetings to take place with the various trade unions responsible for workers in the industry?

Mr. Marks: That is not a message I have received from either side at the time of the meeting or since. Since that meeting I have issued guidance notes on a moratorium to the regional water authorities and the National Water Council, and I have placed a copy of those notes in the Library.

Mr. Michael Latham: Has the hon. Member seen the published text of a speech made by the President of the House-Builders Federation earlier today, saying that the six-month moratorium could bring work on hundreds of housing sites to a complete stop?

Mr. Marks: That is the kind of difficulty caused by public expenditure cuts. As I recently pointed out to the manufacturers, there have been demands for much larger cuts in public expenditure. We are told that the cuts are too little and too late, and in some instances industry has supported those pleas. The advice we have given to water authorities means that they may pre-order pipes and other materials during the moratorium period. The moratorium relates to contract work. I hope that the notes of guidance will assist industry.

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairmen of the water authorities.

Mr. Marks: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State saw the chairmen of the regional water authorities on 20th December 1976.

Mr. Hardy: Did the meeting consider the serious problems faced by those who depend on cess-pit drainage? Given the Government's concern over water equalisation charges, does my hon. Friend not


agree that there is urgent need to improve that area of operations?

Mr. Marks: I appreciate the difficulties, particularly in rural areas. Incidentally, my right hon. Friend naturally warned the chairmen of the water authorities about the effects of the moratorium rather than about more detailed matters. I appreciate that the cost of cess-pool emptying is heavy, but I have no powers to make any directions to the local authorities or to the water authorities in this respect. As I said previously, we must hope for legislation to do that.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Is the Minister prepared to give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that the moratorium to the water authorities will not affect more housing development or those schemes necessary for the economic revival of the country?

Mr. Marks: We shall look at particular proposals, but in general, where planning permission has been given for housing development, we would expect the water authorities to carry out their statutory requirements. We have asked them to inform us of any such situations.

Mr. Whitehead: Will the Minister impress on the chairmen of the water authorities the need for a prompt response to the public outcry over annoyance, odours and other matters relating to sewage works where the sewage works concerned, as happened at the Megaloughton Works at Spondon in my constituency, have been the subjects of experiments relating to sewage flow and matters of that kind? What is being done about it?

Mr. Marks: I shall certainly take up that matter. It has not been brought to my attention on previous occasions.

Miss Fookes: Did the Minister discuss the possibility of at least charging domestic users on the basis of the amount of water consumed?

Mr. Marks: At the moment we are operating the 1973 Water Act. I have no power to direct the water authorities with regard to the way that they make charges. I may make suggestions and give some guidance, but I have no power to put such proposals before the water authorities. In general the metering of domestic supplies would need a considerable amount of capital expenditure.

Government Offices (Location)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for relocating Government offices from London to the West Midlands in general and the Cannock Chase in particular and if he will study the communications and other advantages of the Cannock Chase area as a location for Government offices.

Mr. Marks: There are no plans at present to move Government offices from London to the West Midlands. If such a possibility should arise in the future the advantages of the Cannock Chase area, as well as of other areas in that region, would be considered.

Mr. Roberts: Would my hon. Friend not accept that there is now in the West Midlands a serious unemployment problem and that female as well as male unemployment is at a high level? This is an area that is proving attractive in the sense that it has good communications with many other parts of the country. Will my hon. Friend seriously reconsider his answer?

Mr. Marks: My hon. Friend will be aware that a programme involving the dispersal of over 31,000 Civil Service posts from London is currently in progress. It is a considerable programme that creates great difficulties for many individual civil servants. It was decided in 1971 that most of these posts would go to the assisted areas. The opportunities for further moves are limited. However, for any work that cannot be sited in an assisted area the claims of the West Midlands will be considered along with those of other areas.

Mr. Budgen: Would the Minister agree that the hopes of the West Midlands for the future will rest upon profitable private industry and not on moving a number of jobs and trying to swell the already over-burdened ranks of the bureaucracy?

Mr. Marks: Yes, I am sure the hon. Gentleman is right to say that private industry—assisted as it is by the Government—can make its contribution to solving these problems.

Mr. Lipton: Will the Minister strike a judicious balance, because the population


of London has been falling steadily and, secondly, unemployment in London is as high as anywhere else in the country? These factors ought to be taken into account.

Mr. Marks: I appreciate, as I am sure my right hon. Friend does, that inner London has just the same problems—if not worse problems—as many inner provincial cities. What we are trying to do in particular is help inner city areas in the assisted areas. Many of the Civil Service moves will be made not from inner London but from areas more distant from London.

Mrs. Knight: Is the Minister not aware that many parts of Cannock Chase are of very great beauty and much appreciated by the residents of Birmingham? The headquarters of the National Coal Board is already there. Surely we have enough Government offices sprawled about in that area.

Mr. Marks: In my other responsibility for the Countryside Commission I take note of what the hon. Lady has said. Many of the buildings that are being constructed are attractive and are in excellent surroundings.

Housing

Mr. Douglas-Mann: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from trade unions representing the construction industry concerning the distribution, as between investment and subsidies, of public funds allocated to housing.

Mr. Freeson: Representations were made at the meeting of the National Consultative Council for the Building and Civil Engineering Industries in December.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that over the past few years there has been a massive shift in the proportion of public money spent on housing away from investment on new building and improvement and towards the subsidising of rents and mortgages? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that if this trend continues we shall have a construction industry capable of meeting the housing needs of the future?

Mr. Freeson: Certainly that is a point that has given rise to some concern in various quarters. It falls to be considered,

and is being considered, as part of the housing policy review. I do not think I am in a position to make any further comment on this matter at present.

Mr. Carter-Jones: In view of the large number of people unemployed in the construction industry and the fact that the import content in building new houses and factories is low, would my right hon. Friend not be better off giving more effort, energy and money to expanding the public as well as the private sector in industry in order to provide employment for construction industry workers?

Mr. Freeson: The provision of capital resources for public or private sector industrial development does not fall within my remit. I am concerned only with the housing aspect. I operate within the budgetary limits imposed by the cuts announced in July and subsequently in December.
The point that was put to me concerned the balance between expenditure on subsidy, either in the private or public sector, compared with the expenditure on investment and whether we should not reform that balance. I have indicated that we are looking at such questions in the context of the housing policy review.

Mr. Heseltine: Does the Minister realise that by continuing the emphasis on current consumption in public expenditure he is actually destroying jobs in the construction industry because he is cutting back on capital investment? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that there is any prospect of there being fewer than 250,000 unemployed workers in the construction industry by the end of this year?

Mr. Freeson: I can only remind the hon. Gentleman once more that, whatever the constraints in the past year, we are currently building many more houses. We have a higher rate of investment in housing construction today than when we came into office and inherited the programme of the last Conservative Government. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned to see a cut-back in current expenditure in these areas, I should be interested to hear his views and those of his party at some time. In the housing policy review we are looking for any proposals that can be mooted for cutting mortgage tax relief, which is part of the question put to me.

House-Builders Federation

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet representatives of the House-Builders Federation.

Mr. Freeson: The House-Builders Federation has accepted my invitation to join a DOE/HBF Working Group which now meets regularly.

Mr. Latham: Has not the federation said that private starts this year could be as low as 100,000, or under half the 1973 level? Does the Minister agree with that figure and does he not feel any sense of guilt or embarrassment about the present situation?

Mr. Freeson: I am a very worried man, as I hope all of us are, about this and many other problems. The figure quoted by the hon. Gentleman is correct. Such a figure has been used by the President of the House-Builders Federation. It is not a figure that I necessarily accept.

Mr. Heffer: Has my right hon. Friend had discussions with the House-Builders Federation and with various other bodies in the construction industry about import substitution? Are any studies being made of this matter? What efforts are being made to use bricks on a bigger scale, as well as other indigenous building materials, to save imports, which is a matter of great importance to the industry?

Mr. Freeson: I am aware that there is some importation of foreign materials and goods for construction in this country, not just for house building, but for other construction purposes. As far as I am aware—I shall check on this—no current study of import substitution is being made under our sponsorship.
Some equipment and fittings are imported because the industry does not provide comparable equipment able to be used by architects, engineers and designers. We are giving great emphasis, with some increasing effect, to exports by the construction industry, which are improving year by year. I shall take note of my hon. Friend's comments and see whether the matters he has mentioned require further study and examination.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Minister agree that local authorities can play a part in helping to stimulate new private building for sale by providing sites of their own for private builders on a long leasehold basis and having joint schemes in that way?

Mr. Freeson: Yes, that is so. In a policy circular that we issued during 1974, about a month after we came into office—and again in 1975—we indicated ways by which local authorities could make these joint efforts. Quite a number of local authorities have embarked on such efforts in co- operation with private developers and a number are still initiating such projects. I would welcome continued efforts in this direction.

Mr. Michael Morris: Has not the number of improvement grants fallen year by year? When will the Minister bring forward his long-considered recommendations for revising improvement grants?

Mr. Freeson: It is correct that the number of improvement grant applications and approvals has gone down markedly in the past two or three years. That is largely due to the general recession in the economy. We cannot expect any dramtic change in that situation, whatever alterations might be made in the improvement grant system.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a little disappointed that during this rather dull Question Time the most important Question was not reached. I thought that the arrival of the Lord President signified that perhaps a special message had been sent to you from the Front Bench that Question 28, concerning Oliver Cromwell, should be raised. Could you advise me, Mr. Speaker, how you sometimes decide to call a Question that is far down the list? Is it because the Question is important, or is it because a special representation has been made from the Front Bench?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not responsible for the grouping of Questions. I am deeply sorry that Oliver Cromwell must remain where he is.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (MEETING OF COUNCIL OF MINISTERS)

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I will, with permission, report to the House on the meeting of the Council of Ministers held in Brussels yesterday. This was the first to be held under British chairmanship. I was accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was also in attendance for the fisheries discussion.
First, we reviewed the progress made, following the European Council's statement in November, on talks with Japan about the current imbalance in trade. It became clear that very little progress had been made, and the Council instructed the Commission to renew these talks, especially on shipbuilding, and report back to the next Council.
Relations with Portugal were discussed in the light of Dr. Soares's forthcoming visits in the Community and the possibility of a Portuguese application for membership. The Council agreed that we must find a way of reconciling the need for political support for a democratic Portugal, on which member Governments are wholly agreed, with the economic problems which membership could entail for both Portugal and the Community. The Council will revert to this subject in February.
A technical point concerned with the preparations for the meeting of the General Committee of the Euro-Arab Dialogue in Tunis in February was remitted for further study. Two detailed points concerning new accessions to the Lomé Convention were quickly resolved.
During the Council, preferential trade agreements were signed between the Community and Egypt, Jordan and Syria. A similar agreement with Israel will be signed on 8th February. This will virtually complete the implementation of the Community's overall approach to the countries of the Mediterranean area. The Council reviewed the prospects for the resumption of the Conference on International Economic Co-operation and agreed on a programme of work to pre-

pare a Community position on the issues involved.
The Council had a useful and constructive discussion on fisheries. Most important, we agreed that further communications should be made by the Presidency to the USSR, Poland and the German Democratic Republic, drawing attention to the continued excessive levels of their fishing in the waters of Community member States and laying down the precise number of their trawlers which would be permitted to fish for the remainder of the three-month interim period. Only the authorised number of vessels will be licensed to fish, and it will be the responsibility of member States to operate and enforce this initial licensing system. We did not reach agreement on a regulation governing the details of a future Community licensing system but discussion is continuing.
The Council also briefly discussed conservation measures, and will return to the matter on 8th February after Agriculture Ministers have first had an opportunity to discuss it on 25th January.

Mr. John Davies: I thank the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary for the statement he has made. We are glad that he made it today, the day after the Council meeting. We hope that this indicates his intention during his presidency and thereafter to come regularly to the House to make statements and that other Ministers will do the same. We did not find the practice followed during 1976 so satisfactory. I offer the right hon. Gentleman our good wishes in the presidency of the Council which he has just assumed, and I hope that he meets with success.
Of the many subjects raised in the statement, I should like to concentrate on two. The first concerns the satisfactory outcome of the negotiations with the Mediterranean countries and the reaching of an overall agreement in the Mediterranean. Will this success be pursued in the field of political co-operation with a view to taking advantage of the undoubtedly rather more welcoming signs that there are of reaching a satisfactory settlement with the Middle East in order to bring to bear the force of the Community on such a settlement?
The second subject is fisheries. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the


news, which is worrying us all, that the rate of catch by the third countries he mentioned, and by some others, looks like exceeding during the first month the total of the quarter's authorised catch?
Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that it will prove possible for the Community to move to a specific licensing system of ships so that there can be a complete identity of those that are authorised to fish and those that are not? Will he assure the House that the monitoring system individually to be undertaken by the member countries will prove equal to the task? Grave doubts have been cast on whether it will prove practicable.
In relation to intra-Community countries as against extra-Community countries, what arrangements are in hand for interim purposes, bearing in mind that the present interim arrangement is due to run out at the end of this month? The House and the industry generally would be extremely perturbed if we were to have to rely on the principle of catch quotas for that three-month interim arrangement.

Mr. Crosland: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his good wishes in what will certainly be a challenging task. I and my colleagues will do our best to extend every courtesy to the House by making statements at regular intervals.
On the Mediterranean, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The conclusion of the overall approach has been a great success for the Community, but that has been within the framework of Community trade agreements and not of political co-operation. We are moving to a position where the Community must assess its rôle in the Middle East and possibly in Cyprus, without necessarily coming to a final conclusion until we know what will be the attitude of the Carter Administration. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about that.
I confirm what the right hon. Gentleman said about fishing by third countries. The amount of fish—certainly of some species—that has been caught by Soviet trawlers in the first month is at least equal to the quota for the whole three months. That underlines the urgency of the situation with which we were dealing yesterday.
Am I satisfied that all countries will be able to operate the enforcement system? I dare say that some countries will be better able than others, and I do not doubt that there will be a certain ragged quality at the beginning. That also applies to monitoring. The United Kingdom is equipped for monitoring in our own waters, and these are of the greatest importance to us.
On the interim negotiating regime, we have extended the standstill until 8th February to give more time. It will take a very long time to settle even an interim regime, let alone a permanent revised common fisheries policy. As I said in Brussels yesterday, the lesson of the past three months is that we have to take this more slowly. We must not take it at a gallop and expect every Council meeting to produce a final solution. We must take it in a deliberate step-by-step manner.

Mr. Hooley: Could my right hon. Friend be a little more forthcoming on the question of international economic cooperation and the North-South dialogue? Is he aware that the reaction of the oil-producing countries on oil prices over the next few months will depend a good deal on how forthcoming the Western world is on debts of developing countries and on technical assistance? Was there any genuine thinking in the Community on these matters?

Mr. Crosland: There are different views about the extent to which OPEC decisions are affected by decisions taken within the context of the CIEC. I am rather more sceptical than some people on this. However, that does not diminish the importance of these matters. A lot of work is going on in the Community, and discussions will be started very rapidly with the new American Administration on subjects such as debts, raw material prices and the rest. We must see that when the CIEC Ministerial Committee meets—I do not know when that will be—we provide a constructive set of proposals on behalf of the Community.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on conducting his first meeting with rather greater expedition than is customary. Were there any informal discussions about direct elections, and did the right hon. Gentleman's


French counterpart indicate that France would conduct the elections on a proportional basis? If so, how will this affect the Foreign Secretary's attitude to the Bill which is about to be brought to the House? Is it not possible that Britain may be the odd man out of the Nine?

Mr. Crosland: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. There were no discussions, either informal or formal, about direct elections. I can confirm that France will have direct elections on a proportional system. The implications of that for this country are a matter of dispute and controversy.

Sir G. de Freitas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his handling of Council questions in the European Parliament last week was much appreciated? In these circumstances, will he attend the European Parliament from time to time during his presidency, in spite of his many responsibilities outside Europe?

Mr. Crosland: I shall do the best I can.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: May I add the congratulations of this Bench to those which I expressed to the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment on Wednesday in Luxembourg? I appreciate the problems of going step by step on fishing policy, but will this lead us to a 50-mile coastal preference for our inshore fleet? Could we have a clear answer? Is this the aim of negotiations conducted on behalf of the United Kingdom? The present over-fishing is causing great distress to the fishing industry around the shores of Britain and Ireland. Will the Foreign Secretary also say a word about the effect of the new applications to join the EEC on the rich pond of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Crosland: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her congratulations but I am getting a bit nervous about some of these, which have a certain kiss-of-death air. Certainly I can confirm that the British aim is, as set out in May last year, for a variable coastal belt extending up to 50 miles. That is, and remains, our aim.

Mr. Nelson: Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the strong public concern about the price of cod having reached £1 a pound? Is he also aware that the Soviet

bloc fished out more than 20 per cent. of the total EEC catch last year and that there is need of a much more satisfactory agreement between the Community and the Soviet bloc on this matter? Does he not feel that the proposals on national licensing put forward at the meeting allow the Soviet bloc to duck out of its responsibilities to recognise the Community and negotiate with Brussels, as we have been forced and have chosen to do in the conduct of the fisheries negotiations with Iceland?

Mr. Crosland: I accept the hon. Member's general point. Of course we want a Community negotiating position, because the Community will negotiate with greater bargaining power and strength than Britain could alone. However, if the Community cannot enforce the numbers of trawlers laying down, I would rather Britain did it unilaterally than that it was not done at all. It is vitally necessary to get a more satisfactory situation than the one we have now, and that is the entire object of the exercise.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the conference, after it had finished discussing the imbalance of Trade between Japan and the Community—in which, so I gather, little progress was made—discussed the imbalance of trade between Britain and the Community? Is my right hon. Friend aware that since we joined the Community the imbalance has reached about £7,000 million? Is it not time we did something about this?

Mr. Crosland: That is an interesting, fundamental, and controversial question, but it did not actually figure on the agenda yesterday.

Mr. Blaker: May I follow up the point about the Eastern Mediterranean? It would be a considerable step forward if the Community developed a common foreign policy towards the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli dispute. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that circumstances are now relatively favourable in this regard, and will he give an assurance that he will devote himself to this objective during the time he is President?

Mr. Crosland: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There has been, in effect, a standstill in these matters for the last two


months with the lame-duck Administration in the United States and the uncertainty about the incoming Administration. That period formally comes to an end tomorrow, and in the new situation I expect that shortly we shall have a political co-operation meeting in London. These matters will feature on the agenda at that meeting.

Mr. Roper: Returning to the question of Japan, can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the Commission is able to report progress in the negotiations on the question of car sales to Japan—firstly on the arrangements for inspection in the Community, and secondly on the emission standards which the Japanese are demanding? If the Commission is unable to make progress, will my right hon. Friend consider suggesting to his colleagues a meeting at ministerial level between the Community and Japan?

Mr. Crosland: There has been some progress on the particular matter of pollution controls on cars, but this was not the main subject we were discussing yesterday. Our discussions were on the very much wider and larger question of the total imbalance of trade between the Community and Japan.

Mr. Crouch: Can the Foreign Secretary tell us his main objectives? I am not quite sure to what extent he envisages, during his period as President of the Council, placing priority on a European voice, rather than a variety of national voices, in certain aspects of foreign policy, particularly concerning the Middle East.

Mr. Crosland: I made an immensely long speech in Luxembourg on Wednesday of last week. Copies of that speech have been placed in the Vote Office, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes I will send him a special autographed copy.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Was anything said at the meeting about the statement in the first speech of Mr. Roy Jenkins as President of the Commission that
Our means are economic, our end is political"?
In view of the fact that the British Government have time and again stated that they are opposed to federal union in Europe, will the Foreign Secretary tell us what he has to say about that tendentious statement by Mr. Roy Jenkins?

Mr. Crosland: No reference was made to that in our discussions yesterday, but I must point out in fairness to Mr. Jenkins that when he was using the word "our" throughout that speech he was referring not to the United Kingdom but to the Community.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Precisely.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Let me assure the Foreign Secretary that our congratulation is not the kiss of death but an attempt to breathe some life into the institution. Why, with such a dynamic presidency ahead, was the whole question of the Abu Daoud release not raised at the meeting of the Council of Ministers? Which questions were raised regarding the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, which is said to have been the main achievement of the present body?

Mr. Crosland: That subject was not referred to; it was not on the agenda. However, the United Kingdom Government have every intention of signing that convention on the first day that it is available for signature.

Mr. Spearing: Will my right hon. Friend say what were the precise arrangements for meeting the Press after the Council yesterday? Will he say what arrangements he expects to make in the future? Are those arrangements separate from any made by the new President of the Commission concerning his Press statements? Is he aware that the official communiques which have so far come from the Council after the meetings have been far too short to be of any use?

Mr. Crosland: I do not know what Press arrangements were made for the President of the Commission. However, I followed the practice of all my predecessors of having an open and public Press conference some 15 minutes after the Council completed its business.

Mr. Marten: Further to the question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser), may I ask whether the Foreign Secretary recalls the White Paper that we debated on 10th January? Does he recall also that paragraph 5 of that document referred to the great triumph of the Common Market in agreeing to co-operation against international terrorism? Are we


not now having words but no action? Surely this subject could have been inscribed upon the agenda in some form of Standing Order No. 9 arrangement, because this is just what the Common Market is about. Once again it has failed.

Mr. Crosland: I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman on this subject. Whether or not it was discussed yesterday—it might not have been particularly productive if it had been—it is crucial that all the member States and all civilised Governments act not only according to the letter of the many and various agreements but according to their spirit. Many people think that this has not always been the case.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend expand a little on the part of his statement relating to Portugal? Will he confirm that it is still the Government's view that further enlargement of the Community should be given high priority?

Mr. Crosland: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Clegg: Will the Foreign Secretary clarify two points about fishing? What is the position of the non-quota countries such as Romania and Bulgaria? How are they to be treated? Secondly, was there any mention of the Icelandic situation at the meeting?

Mr. Crosland: The position on Iceland is, unfortunately, still the same as it was at the Council on 20th December in that negotiations have not been resumed. There is a hope that the talks might restart, but I would not want to give a falsely optimistic picture about that and about what would happen if they did restart.
Bulgaria is not in the same position as East Germany, the Soviet Union and Poland. Such fishing rights as it had are now extinct, and it now has no right to send any trawlers to Community waters.

Mr. James Johnson: I do not wish further to embarrass my right hon. Friend who is a fellow Humberside MP, but he deserves the best thanks of all hon. Members with fishing interests for the firm stand that he and his colleagues have made against other EEC Ministers. Will he accept that in the short term the Soviet trawlers represent the biggest danger in

the North Sea and other waters? The Soviet Press is talking about agreements with us. The Soviet Union will not accept a 200–mile limit, but does my right hon. Friend know whether it would be willing to negotiate for the surpluses around our shores?

Mr. Crosland: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have believed for some time that by far the most pressing problem for the British fishing industry is not Iceland, real though that problem is. I believe that it is the problem of fishing by Eastern European countries in our waters. There we are talking about quantities far greater than the quantities involved over Iceland. So far, the Soviet Union has not shown itself willing to negotiate. If that situation continues at the end of the three-month interim period, the Soviet Union will have no further fishing rights of any kind in Community waters. Whether between now and the end of the interim period it will show itself willing to negotiate is still a matter for speculation.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall call the two hon. Members on each side who have been rising consistently. I hope that they will be brief. Mr. Michael Marshall.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. May I appeal to the Foreign Secretary to make particular efforts in two respects? Will he play his part in ensuring that there is not a repetition of what happened last week when an EEC debate was held here immediately before he assumed the rôle which has been commented upon today and while the European Parliament was in session? Will he take account of what was said in the debate last week concerning the worries about co-ordination between his Department, the Department of Trade and the Department of Industry on matters concerning industry generally but particularly on the question of anti-dumping action?

Mr. Crosland: My answer to the second part is "Yes". I read the debate with close attention and I noticed that this point was made. I shall attend to it as best I can. Equally I shall think, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, about the first point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Christopher Price: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for rewarding my persistence by calling me. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be general satisfaction that in an earlier answer he linked the question of Cyprus with the whole question of the Community's relations with the Middle East in general? Will he say a little more about his hopes for a European initiative on Cyprus in conjunction with any United States initiative at the same time?

Mr. Crosland: I can say no more at this stage. All we have to go on so far with the United States are the statements on Cyprus made during the campaign by Mr. Carter, as he still is, and Mr. Cyrus Vance. It would be foolish to come out with any definite statement until the new Administration have been in office for time enough to prepare their views, but I hope that that will not take too much time.

Mr. Forman: Will the Foreign Secretary assure us that a major conclusion he has drawn from his first meeting as President is the absolute importance at this time of international economic relations, particularly as this is something that the new Carter Administration have been stressing in advance of taking office? What plans does the right hon. Gentleman have as President of the Council to advance requirements in this area?

Mr. Crosland: That was a view that I had held for a considerable time before the Council met yesterday. There is no doubt that this subject will come up as the central topic when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I visit the new Administration in Washington and, shortly after that, probably when the next European Council takes place. We had a discussion in the last European Council, but, to tell the truth, in the closing days of the Administration in the United States that did not get us very far. I hope that the talks will be more productive next time.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Skinner: According to William Hickey, I have no friends.
Will my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary beware of those Labour Members who are showing flattery and are

backing both Common Market horses, because they might just be candidates in the elections for the European Parliament? Will my right hon. Friend concentrate his mind very clearly on the talks about the imbalance of trade with Japan? It seems to some of us that the likely outcome of curbing Japanese imports into this country and other Common Market countries might be more Common Market imports coming to Britain. The crafty Germans and the French might succeed in such a circumstance in getting more manufactured goods into this country, thus helping to maintain the high levels of unemployment which exist here.

Mr. Crosland: I shall beware of over-flattering friends and also of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) when he is as friendly as he has been this afternoon. I shall also beware of the very intricate economic problems to which he has referred.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Fred Evans: I rise to speak about a matter on which I most humbly seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, and a possible ruling concerning what may constitute a breach of privilege by Mr. George Wright, the secretary of a body in Wales which calls itself the Trade Union Congress of Wales. Mr. Wright is also the General Secretary of the Wales for the Assembly Action Committee.
Yesterday, it was my distasteful task to draw to the attention of the House and the appropriate quarters an improper use of the message board for the distribution of propaganda in connection with a fundamental debate. It was obviously an attempt to sway the opinions of hon. Members.
The essence of this matter, however, is rather different. It is contained in the South Wales Echo of Thursday 13th January. The extract to which I wish to draw the attention of the Chair and the House is an article entitled
 'Wales out' vote will be treachery—claim ".
That is the claim of Mr. Wright, but in an interview with the Press he said that the action of hon. Members who voted


against Wales being included in the devolution Bill
would not be forgotten by those of us in leading positions and the people we serve.
That can apply only to my colleagues and I who have resisted some aspects of the Government's devolution policy and who have called for a referendum. We are now being attacked in this way.
More seriously for all hon. Members is that this utterance by somebody who holds a responsible position—Mr. Wright is regional organiser for the Transport and General Workers Union—could jeopardise the political security of hon. Members. That would indeed be serious. This situation has been drawn to my attention by constituents. It has also been pointed out to other hon. Members by constituents who uphold the right of an hon. Member to represent the views expressed in his constituency without fear of any actions, direct or indirect, being taken against him.
I realise, of course, the technical difficulty in this case. It was only after leaving the Chamber for a short while during yesterday's debate that my attention was drawn to the matter. It was not possible for me to have seen the newspaper before. May I humbly suggest for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, that this debate will be a long and continuing one. Could not the technicalities be waived as we began only yesterday with a full day's debate on devolution in Wales?
I emphasise that I find it disasteful to have to raise such matters in this honourable House, but I would regard it as a dereliction of my duty, as a democrat and as an hon. Member, if I did not do everything in my power to try to protect the

image of Parliament and to protect the rights of individual Members of all parties. It is in that spirit that I submit this matter to you, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration and guidance.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice this morning that he intended to raise the matter this afternoon, and I am deeply grateful to him. He knows, and the House knows, that it has been my practice and that of my predecessors to ask for 24 hours to consider a question after it has been raised. But that has applied only when it has been within the power of Mr. Speaker to give a ruling on the matter. The exception—when the Chair does not defer answering—is when it lies outside the power of the Chair to give the matter precedence over the business of the day.
I must inform the hon. Member that this is clearly a case in which I have no power to meet his wishes. The material complained of was published in the South Wales Echo last Thursday night. It is now six days since publication. Although the hon. Member did not learn of the matter until last night, it would have been possible for other hon. Members to have raised it. The fact that the hon. Member did not learn of it until last night is not germane to my powers. It is, therefore, impossible for me to give the matter precedence, but the hon. Member may well find other means of pursuing the matter if he wishes to do so.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Ordered,

That the Import Duties (General) (No. 10) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 2077) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Foot.]

BRITISH STEEL CORPORATION (DENATIONALISATION)

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restore the steel industry to ownership by the people.
The iron and steel industries were first nationalised in 1949, denationalised in 1953 and renationalised in 1967. During the Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill in 1966 my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) said this:
we are told that it would be unpatriotic to undertake to repeal the Measure. We take the opposite view. In view of the disaster that this Bill will bring to the steel industry, it would be unpatriotic if we were not to undertake to repeal it. Nationalisation will be a disaster for the efficient management of this industry."—[Official Report, 25th July 1966; Vol. 732, c. 1340.]
My right hon. Friend's prediction has come true. The experience of the past 10 years has shown that nationalisation has done nothing to solve the problems of the steel industry and that the case for transferring ownership of the industry from the State to the people is stronger than ever.
Yet, despite my right hon. Friend's brave words during that Second Reading debate, the commitment to denationalise the steel industry found no place in the Tory manifestos of June 1970 or of February and October 1974. The ratchet had operated once again in favour of the Socialist State and the Conservative Party had come to accept what previously had been unacceptable. The purpose of my Bill is to challenge that ratchet effect of Socialism.
Employment in the BSC has fallen from 252,000 in 1970 to 210,000 today. In the same period, liquid steel production fell from 26 million tons to 17 million tons while steel deliveries at home and abroad fell from 19·7 million tons to 12·7 million tons. Last year the Corporation made a record loss of £246 million and this year it forecasts a loss of £70 million, all of which will have to be borne by the taxpayer.
The Corporation is subject to ministerial control. The Secretary of State may give general or specific directions to the Corporation, which is not allowed to

make substantial changes in its organisation without the Minister's consent. The Minister determines what rate of return on net assets is considered reasonable, and only the Minister may appoint members of the Corporation and fix their remuneration. This gives to politicians power and patronage which they ought not to have and which has been used all too often not to further the true interests of the industry but to achieve the political purposes of the Government of the day.
Nor are the powers of the Minister to give directions to the Corporation simply reserve powers to be used sparingly and in exceptional circumstances. Sir Monty Finniston was prevented by a directive from the present Secretary of State for Energy from carrying out the fundamental reconstruction of the industry which he considered to be essential. In his memorandum to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries on 7th April last year, Sir Monty confirmed that productivity per man in the privately-owned Japanese industry was nearly three times higher than in the State-owned BSC and that productivity in the privately-owned United States industry was more than twice that of the nationalised BSC.
In the EEC, Italy alone—hardly an example of a country whose industrial policies should be followed—has a major publicly-owned steel industry. For all the rest, competitive free enterprise has produced better results.
I believe that there is a direct connection between the relatively poor performance of our steel industry and the fact that it is a giant State-owned monopoly, while in other countries, which have far outstripped our performance, discipline and competition and the absence of political interference have been the twin guarantors of success.
The need to depoliticise decision-making in manufacturing industry is being increasingly widely accepted, but we shall never be able to stop political interference until we get rid of political ownership. In the last 30 years, vast areas of this country's industrial and economic life have passed into the hands of the State.
The mix in the mixed economy, to which even the Leader of the House pays grudging tribute, has moved in one direction only—in favour of the State sector.


This transfer of ownership and control from the many to the few has led to the creation of State-owned monopolies and has far-reaching consequences not only for economic and industrial success but for the free society.
If we are to halt and then to reverse this dangerous extension of the State's rôle, the Tory Party must plot the path. In so doing, we have gained unexpected allies from the Labour Party and even from some hon. Members below the Gangway. Last month the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced to a hushed and tense House that, in order to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement next year, the Government proposed to sell 2 per cent. of their holding in BP.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: He was wrong, too.

Mr. Gow: What is good enough for BP is good enough for the steel industry.
The second quarter from which the Bill receives unexpected support is the manifestos of the Labour Party at the last two General Elections, which called for
A fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people".
Just so. The Bill has precisely that objective—to transfer power and wealth from the few to the many. Such a transfer of ownership is an essential precondition for a more efficient, responsive, competitive and depoliticised industry. It would mark a crucial milestone along the journey which must be made from a collectivist State to a free society.
For the past decade or more, we have come to assume that our industrial performance should be increasingly determined by the Government—by a small group of politically-motivated men and women sitting in Whitehall. That experiment has failed. Our industrial performance will be greatly improved if decisions are taken by the people and not by Socialists or any other Ministers in Whitehall.
The Bill seeks to provide an opportunity to restore power to the people, and I commend it to the House.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. David Watkins: Mr. David Watkins (Consett) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman seek to oppose the motion?

Mr. Watkins: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I rise to oppose the application for leave to introduce the Bill.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is a compulsive denationaliser who has injected a distinct air of déjà vu into our proceedings. We have all been here before; we have all heard similar phraseology and the same theme over and again on a number of occasions when the hon. Gentleman has sought leave to introduce a Bill to denationalise various industries and, in reality, to hand over public industries to private interests. If for no other reason, the House should reject the hon. Gentleman's application on the grounds of sheer boredom and tedious repetition. However, there are a number of other important reasons which I shall touch on as briefly as possible.
The hon. Gentleman talked about competitive free enterprise, and it is interesting to look at the record of the industry when it was run by allegedly competitive free enterprise. Long before the steel industry was nationalised, there was no enterprise or competition in it. There has been no competition in steel since the 1930s when the private owners carved up the market specifically in order to eliminate competition and, at the same time, brought about a stagnation of investment.
The oxygen process of converting iron to steel is an object lesson of the failures of private ownership. The process was invented in this country but was rejected by the steel masters and developed abroad. This is demonstrated in the name used for converters—LD, Linz after the town in Austria in which this British invention was processed and developed and Donowitz after the man who developed it. It is such investment failures that are responsible for the present-day problems in the industry.
The House need not take my word for it. Let me quote from a White Paper. It said:
Investment in the British steel industry during the mid-1960s was low compared with that of its international competitors, and the companies from which the Corporation was formed in 1967 were, in general, financially weak. Nationalisation brought the BSC a large number of works with obsolete technology and


low productivity.… Since then the rate of investment has approximately doubled.
That is from paragraph 16 of the White Paper, Cmnd. 5226, produced in February 1973 by the last Tory Government.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne talked of restoring the industry to ownership by the people. If he had proposed to introduce a Bill to convert the industry to common ownership, in accordance with the principles of that important piece of legislation the Industrial Common Ownership Act 1976, I should not have opposed him. Indeed, I would willingly have been a co-sponsor. But what the hon. Gentleman proposes is exactly the opposite—to hand over a vitally important part of the British economy to private interests which, on their past and current records, would no doubt then feel free to strip the assets so as to line their pockets at the expense of the nation.
I gather that one of the hon. Gentleman's complaints is against his own party. No one in the industry wants it to be denationalised; nor does his party, if it is to be judged on its deeds rather than its words, as he himself said. Even when the Tory Government denationalised it for

doctrinaire reasons in 1953, they retained a strong measure of State control. They did not denationalise it in 970 when they were re-elected, when they could reasonably have claimed to have a mandate to do so and when they had a majority in this House—and inevitably a majority in the House of Lords—to do so. Nor was there any commitment in the Tory manifestos in the two General Elections in 1974 to denationalise the industry.

No one who knows anything about steel—producers or customers—wants denationalisation. The only ones who want it are those who bring nineteenth-century thinking to bear on the discredited theories of eighteenth-century economists. There is no case for denationalisation, and none has been made out today. It would be wholly contrary to the national interest, and I hope that the House will reject this preposterous proposal.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at the commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 245.

Division No. 37.]
AYES
[4.23 p.m.


Arnold, Tom
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Elliott, Sir William
Knox, David


Baker, Kenneth
Eyre, Reginald
Lamont, Norman


Banks, Robert
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Bell, Ronald
Fairgrieve, Russell
Lawrence, Ivan


Benyon, W.
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lawson, Nigel


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Le Marchant, Spencer


Biggs-Davison, John
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Blaker, Peter
Forman, Nigel
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Body, Richard
Fry, Peter
Lloyd, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Loveridge, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Luce, Richard


Bradford, Rev Robert
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Macfarlane, Neil


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Brittan, Leon
Goodhart, Philip
Marten, Neil


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Goodhew, Victor
Mates, Michael


Brotherton, Michael
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mather, Carol


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grieve, Percy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bryan, Sir Paul
Griffiths, Eldon
Mayhew, Patrick


Buck, Antony
Grist, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Budgen, Nick
Hall, Sir John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Burden, F. A.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Peter


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Miscampbell, Norman


Carson, John
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hawkins, Paul
Moate, Roger


Channon, Paul
Hayhoe, Barney
Molyneaux, James


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Higgins, Terence L.
Monro, Hector


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Holland, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus


Clegg, Walter
Hordern, Peter
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Cope, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Cormack, Patrick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Corrie, John
James, David
Mudd, David


Costain, A. P.
Jopling, Michael
Neave, Alrey


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Neubert, Michael


Crouch, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Normanton, Tom


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kimball, Marcus
Nott, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Osborn, John




Page, John (Harrow West)
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Trotter, Neville


Page, Richard (Workington)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Paisley, Rev Ian
St. John Stevas, Norman
Wakeham, John


Parkinson, Cecil
Scott-Hopkins, James
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Pink, R. Bonner
Shepherd, Colin
Wall, Patrick


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Shersby, Michael
Walters, Dennis


Prior, Rt Hon James
Sims, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Sinclair, Sir George
Weatherill, Bernard.


Raison, Timothy
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wells, John


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Spence, John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Sproat, Iain
Winterton, Nicholas


Rhodes James, R.
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Younger, Hon George


Ridsdale, Julian
Stradling Thomas, J.



Rifkind, Malcolm
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tebbit, Norman
Mr. Ian Gow and


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Mr. Nicholas Ridley.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Doig, Peter
Lamborn, Harry


Allaun, Frank
Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James


Archer, Peter
Eadie, Alex
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Armstrong, Ernest
Edge, Geoff
Lee, John


Ashton, Joe
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Atkinson, Norman
Eilis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lipton, Marcus


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
English, Michael
Litterick, Tom


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ennals, David
Luard, Evan


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McCartney, Hugh


Bates, Alf
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
MacCormick, Iain


Beith, A. J.
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bidwell, Sydney
Faulds, Andrew
McElhone, Frank


Bishop, E. S.
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Boardman, H.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
MacKenzie, Gregor


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Flannery, Martin
Maclennan, Robert


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McNamara, Kevin


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Forrester, John
Madden, Max


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Magee, Bryan


Buchan, Norman
Freud, Clement
Mahon, Simon


Buchanan, Richard
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marks, Kenneth


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Gilbert, Dr John
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ginsburg, David
Maynard, Miss Joan


Campbell, Ian
Golding, John
Meacher, Michael


Canavan, Dennis
Graham, Ted
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Cant, R. B.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mendelson, John


Carmichael, Neil
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mikardo, Ian


Carter, Ray
Grocott, Bruce
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cartwright, John
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hardy, Peter
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Clemitson, Ivor
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cohen, Stanley
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Coleman, Donald
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Noble, Mike


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hatton, Frank
Oakes, Gordon


Concannon, J. D.
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Halloran, Michael


Conlan, Bernard
Hooson, Emlyn
Orbach, Maurice


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Horam, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Corbett, Robin
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Ovenden, John


Cowans, Harry
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Huckfield, Les
Padley, Walter


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Hunter, Adam
Palmer, Arthur


Crawford, Douglas
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Pardoe, John


Cronin, John
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Park George


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Janner, Greville
Parker, John


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Parry, Robert


Cryer, Bob
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
John, Brynmor
Penhaligon, David


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Prescott, John


Dalyell, Tam
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Reid, George


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Deakins, Eric
Kelley, Richard
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kerr, Russell
Roderick, Caerwyn


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Dempsey, James
Lambie, David
Rooker, J. W.







Roper, John
Stoddart, David
Walkinson, John


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Stott, Roger
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Strang, Gavin
White, James (Pollok)


Rowlands, Ted
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Whitehead, Phillip


Sandelson, Neville
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Whitlock, William


Sedgemore, Brian
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wigley, Dafydd


Selby, Harry
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Tierney, Sydney
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Tinn, James
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Skinner, Dennis
Tomlinson, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Small, William
Torney, Tom
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Tuck, Raphael
Woodall, Alec


Snape, Peter
Urwin, T. W.
Woof, Robert


Spearing, Nigel
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Spriggs, Leslie
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)



Stallard, A. W.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Steel, Rt Hon David
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Mr. Frank Hooley and


Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Watkins, David
Mr. Roy Hughes

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL

Further considered in Committee [Progress, 18th January].

[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Would you be kind enough to reconsider your decision not to select Amendment No. 479, in my name? It is linked with New Clause 14. The amendment and the new clause both deal with the situation in the Shetlands and the Orkney islands, and are related to the debate that we are about to begin on Amendment No. 14.
I regret very much that the amendments are starred, and of course I must take responsibility for that. We sought to table them late on Monday afternoon, by which time, for special reasons, the House had risen. It would help the House if you would indicate whether you are prepared to reconsider your decision so that we may include within the debate the related points referred to in the amendment and the new clause in my name as well as in Amendment No. 4 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat).

The Chairman: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. New Clause 13, which also deals with Orkney and Shetland, and New Clause 14 are somewhat different in substance. It will, however, be in order for incidental references to them to be made during the debate. Selection of the new clauses will be made on a subsequent occasion.

Mr. Pym: Thank you for that reply, Mr. Murton. Are you saying that we may refer to the contents of my new clause and my other amendment in this debate without prejudice to debating their substance fully when we come to the new clauses dealing with Orkney and Shetland and coming to a decision on them then?

The Chairman: Most certainly. They may be referred to without prejudice.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Murton, of which

you have been given notice. It may be in your recollection that last night I asked Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine whether, as the referendum clauses were crucial to the nature of the debate, the Chair had any view about postponing discussion. Precedents for this action are the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1976, consideration of which was postponed from 24th February to 11th March in not wholly dissimilar circumstances, and the Police Bill, consideration of which was postponed from 2nd March to 16th March.

The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his desire to raise this point of order. The Chair in the Committee of the whole House has no power in this matter. It is for the Government to decide when they wish to place the Bill on the Order Paper. It is possible for the Committee to report Progress at any time, but I am not prepared, in my discretion under Standing Order No. 28, to accept such a motion at this stage.

Mr. J. Grimond: Further to those points of order, Mr. Murton. Do I understand your first ruling to mean that, while New Clause 13 will not be debated now but will be fully debated later, it may be referred to now?

The Chairman: That is correct.

Mr. Grimond: With regard to the second point of order, may I put it on record that the Government's failure to table their amendment to allow for a referendum is placing me and the Committee in great difficulty with regard to Amendment No. 42?

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. May I draw your attention to Amendment No. 474, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson)? It is an extremely important amendment and is also starred, probably for the same reason as that put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). It is, I suppose, conceivable that the amendment will be reached tonight, because it relates to Clause 1. Would it be possible for you to consider selecting that amendment, or perhaps at


least assuring us that if a similar amendment could be devised which would fit in with a later clause, it would be called? This is a matter of the utmost importance which all hon. Members will want to debate.

The Chairman: That amendment is not selected at this time.

Clause 1

EFFECT OF ACT

Miss Harvie Anderson: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 1, line 9, after first 'Kingdom', insert
'without altering the government of Shetland and the Orkneys, over whom the Scottish Assembly and Executive have no jurisdiction'.
This amendment purports to put forward an opportunity for the House of Commons to decide the future for the islands of Shetland and Orkney which is acceptable to them. I do not put this amendment forward as a sudden whim of anti-devolutionary enthusiasm although my fear that this Bill will assuredly lead to separatism is as real for Shetland and the Orkneys as for the rest of Scotland. My belief is that we should seek to give these islands what they want.
My interest stems from a three-year study of local government in Scotland as a member of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) and I wrote a note of reservation to that report concerning the islands' problems. Our conclusions were accepted by the Government of the day and have been implemented in local government in Shetland and Orkney to give these islands a degree of independence unique in the British Isles.
It is therefore right to look at the pattern of these islands and their history. Their sovereignty was pledged as dowry by the Scandinavian King Christian I on the marriage of his daughter Margaret to James III in 1468. The islanders have maintained a sturdy independence ever since. In the note of reservation we said:
The Shetlands are the most northerly isles in Britain. Lerwick, their capital, is about 120 miles north-east of Kirkwall, the capital of the Orkneys, and the island group is approximately 210 miles north of Aberdeen which is their principal mainland port.

We also said in the note that in the 1968 Registrar General Mid-Year Estimate of Population the population was rather more than 17,000 spread over 18 inhabited islands. The population had fallen steadily from a peak of 31,000 in 1861 until the most recent census which showed a population of just over 17,000.
Until very recently the population was also an ageing one. It is interesting to note that the rateable value per head of population was just over £8. I understand that it has now reached just over £9. The Government grant of total net expenditure on local government had varied very little and stands at around 90 per cent. It is also important to remember that during the last decade unemployment has run at approximately twice the level of any comparable part of the United Kingdom.
The note went on to point out that the Orkneys are situated off the coast of Caithness and while it is true that the distance from Stromness to Scabster is only 30 miles, it is equallly true to say that weather conditions in both these places make communications extremely difficult. The population of the Orkneys which has 25 inhabited islands, had dropped and stood at just over 18,000. The other remarks which I made about the Shetlands are broadly speaking equally applicable to the Orkneys.
It is important to recognise these differences in this part of the United Kingdom because they justify the conclusions we reached when we were considering local government and I submit them now in support of the considerations we are concerned with in relation to national government.
It is also true that much evidence comes from these islands. We had this evidence during our study of local government and we have it now in connection with this Bill. It is equally true to say that the evidence varies somewhat in accordance with who is submitting it. I do not think anyone could be offended if I were to say that evidence from these quarters tends to be subjective. We should not be super-critical of that when we remember the location of the islands and the history of the people.
4.45 p.m.
What is important is that we should take note of the evidence which comes to us from the people involved, even though


it is sometimes variable. The life of these people is in many respects very different from the lives of most citizens in the United Kingdom. If we accept that we have to give special weight to local opinion, it is probably right for me to mention my experiences as a member of the Royal Commission when we paid a visit to the islands. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) will no doubt be familiar with the experience I am about to relate.
The first salutary illustration of the problems with which we were dealing was that our aeroplane could not land. This is a familiar experience for those flying to Orkney or more particularly to Shetland. It was right and proper that weather conditions were such that little matters like Royal Commissions should be greeted in this way. I also remember that when, two days later, we landed at Lerwick, three things were happening. Again they were most significant.
The first people I saw in Lerwick that winter were Russian sailors who were taking on fresh water for their trawler. They greatly outnumbered the local population. The second thing I saw was the crew of the Norwegian lifeboat which was stationed in safer waters than it would have been had it remained in Bergen. The third and equally significant event was that the Lovat Scouts, which originated as the private regiment of the family of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser), were meeting on their drill night. My recollection at the time was that this House had abolished the Lovat Scouts three years previously. I give this as an illustration of the independence of the people whose part of the country we are now discussing.
Therefore, it is not surprising that, when concerned with local government, we on the Royal Commission reached the conclusions referred to, or that they were implemented. Nor is it surprising that, if one brings that view up to date, there was a definite, if muted, "No" from the Islands in the referendum to joining the Common Market.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: When the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was Secretary of State for Scotland, the Scottish Office

issued a circular to all Scottish education authorities saying that examination results should no longer be sent by air to Edinburgh but should be sent to the nearest railhead. As a result, the headmaster of the school at Lerwick dutifully despatched his to Bergen.

Miss Harvie Anderson: That very good point emphasises the picture that I have tried to draw. There is an independence in local government in Orkney and Shetland which I believe to be right. It is that same independence that I seek to perpetuate in national government. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the independence enjoyed now, as over the centuries, will remain possible for these remote islands.
I should not conclude my remarks without referring to the present position. The development of oil has transformed the traditional way of life for many people in those islands. The Committee should recall that two-thirds of the oil discovered in the British sector is located off the East Coast of Shetland. Shetland promoted its own Bill, and in April 1974 it received the Royal Assent. The significant point is that that Act authorised the council to acquire all the land needed for oil development and to take equity capital in ventures established in the designated areas. I am sure that many other parts of the country will be encouraged to believe that their councils would take or receive powers of this order to promote the predominant interests of their areas.
The Shetlands and Orkneys greatly prize their long history, and they are determined to maintain their independence in every way and in modern conditions. The reason for promoting the Bill was that the 6,000 people in Lerwick, who live closely united together, were anxious to defend their community from what they regarded as encroachments. They also wished to promote their own resources in their own interests.
We should recognise that this view is not, as is expressed from time to time by other Scots in Scotland and in the House of Commons, an expression of greed which we deplore and cannot understand. It is an expression of satisfaction that the long history of difficulty and of unemployment has been substantially transformed and that the benefits should accrue to their own people.
The people of Lerwick have not excluded development because, as the Committee knows, the development of Sullom Voe has been both farsighted and successful. It is right to put on record that this part of the island was already despoiled by previous use during the Second World War. It is likely to build up into a port which may challenge Rotterdam as the oil port. Therefore, this is not a small matter of local interest, but a major matter of interest to the whole oil world.
There is little that I can add without going into much detail, and that would take too long. We believe that these independent units should enjoy prosperity. It is no wonder that they want control over their own events. In my view, they do not want to concede authority to anyone, least of all to a new burdensome authority in remote Edinburgh.
What is often overlooked is that if one lives in Lerwick, Edinburgh is as remote as London is from Edinburgh. We also want to promote an opportunity for the islands to exercise their unique independence in national government with the same skill and interest as they have already done in the three years during which they have had the opportunity in local government.

Mr. Grimond: I start by apologising in advance to the Committee in case I have to leave before the end of the debate. I am an inmate of Westminster Hospital and am under orders to attend there. Therefore, I apologise to hon. Members whose speeches I may not hear.
I have explained my position on home rule in general and on this Bill in particular. I listened with care to what was said by the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson), who is looked to with gratitude in my constituency because, with my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), we consider that she was instrumental in getting Orkney and Shetland made into two separate authorities and not put under the Highland Region.
I should have welcomed more advice from the right hon. Lady on how she thinks that the future of Shetland or of Orkney should now be approached. Candidly, it is not enough to say that they should be left out of the Bill. If their positions are not to be altered, it

will be necessary to define how they should be dealt with.
I should make as clear as I can the present situation of the island councils of Shetland and Orkney. Members of the Shetland Islands Council have certainly expressed the view at one time or another that Shetland should be left out of the Bill. But I should make it clear that the only amendments which the council has asked to have put down affect later parts of the Bill. They are Amendments Nos. 345, 205, 346, 274 and New Clause 13. Those amendments and that new clause stand in my name. I put them down after consultation with the council. However, the council has not asked that an amendment excluding Shetland totally from the Bill should be tabled. The amendments for the Zetland Act for which it has asked are to safeguard certain rights that it already possesses in connection with oil and finance.
Everybody will pay great attention to the views of local authorities. But local authorities are elected to deal with local, not national, matters. Therefore, I take sole responsibility for these amendments. I have put them down at the request of the council, but they stand in my name and I am responsible for them.
Some members of the Orkney Islands Council have also expressed a wish for Orkney to be excluded from the Bill, but they have not suggested that I should put down any amendment excluding Orkney from the Bill. I take responsibility for having joined them with Shetland in the amendments which I mentioned earlier, and I have their support in doing so.
5.0 p.m.
Neither of the local authorities can know what the outcome of the Bill may be. They cannot know how many amendments will be accepted, and the final view of my constituents may well depend upon the eventual shape of the Bill.
I raise the possibility of some special arrangement for Orkney and Shetland not mainly because the local authorities have raised the matter but because I have written to many local organisations and individuals and gained the impression that a clear majority do not see any purpose in the Bill. That is my honest impression from the answers I received. The views of my constituents should be


known to Parliament particularly on a constitutional matter as important as this. I do not claim that my poll of individuals, organisations, community councils, NFU branches and trade unions in any way represents a definitive view, but it is an indication of general opinion in Orkney and Shetland.
I understand that the outsider may think that there are certain puzzling aspects to the situation. I have represented Orkney and Shetland for nearly 27 years, and in every election address that I have made I made clear that I am in favour of Scottish home rule. The runner-up to me in the last General Election was a member of the Scottish National Party, and so far as I am aware neither the Labour nor the Tory candidates was against devolution. But a vote at the last election, particularly for the Scottish National Party, was not a vote for separation. No one in Orkney and Shetland wants to be part of an independent Scotland and few want total independence. Everyone is terrified of that. About 95 per cent. of the people are against separation. A vote for the SNP was a useful method of attacking government. By that I mean the nationalised services, the local authorities and so forth. I give the SNP credit for that because that is part of politics. But a great deal of its propaganda is directed not against London but against bodies nearer home. The enormous increase in government has frightened people. They are frightened by another tier of government in Edinburgh.
When the devolution Bill was produced my constituents saw the danger of being dominated by the central belt of Scotland. They saw that there would be no reduction in the size of either Westminster government or local government and that an Edinburgh government would be simply a new tier adding further to their burdens. The apparent contradiction in views between those held at the election and now is a result of the change in the political scene. The people have watched the immense growth in bureaucracy, they know that our economics nationally are in a serious muddle, and they doubt whether this is the time to embark upon constituential change.
I shall quote from a letter written by the Prime Minister on behalf of his col-

leagues, including the Secretary of State for Scotland, which he sent in reply to representations by the Shetland County Council. I have the Prime Minister's permission to quote from the letter. He says:
The success of Shetland in securing flexibility in the handling of purely local matters while enjoying the continuing advantage of the wider Scottish and British connection has been due to the ability of the Shetland community, under the leadership of its Council, to persuade the Government of the day that theirs was a reasonable and efficient way of going about things in their special circumstances. I cannot believe that a new democratic Scottish administration in Edinburgh, itself born of acceptance of the need for local variation, will prove less reasonable or responsive.
Rightly or wrongly, many of my constituents think it will. They think that a purely Scottish Government will be less reasonable and less amenable to their wishes.
We should once again look at the nature and history of Orkney and Shetland. The islands came to Shetland as a surety for the unpaid dowry of a Danish princess on marrying a king of Scotland. Had that dowry been paid, they would have been part of Denmark. Orkney was sold for 50,000 florins of the Rhine and Shetland for 8,000 Rhine florins. Shetland has never lived that down.
Up to that date we were an important part of the great Scandinavian empire. From Scapa Flow went many of the great expeditions to Dublin, the Mediterranean and the Crusades. The earls of Orkney were important figures in the Scandinavian world. The Orkneyinge Saga is one of the great cycle of sagas and the Cathedral of Kirkwall is an example of Norman architecture built by the genuine Norsemen, not by the French, although they had to kidnap masons from Durham to get the job done.
The Scots came in in the 15th and 16th centuries and were for long much hated —justifiably so, and I speak as one. Orkney and Shetland have played little or no part in strictly Scottish history. They have never worn the kilt, spoken Gaelic, or been interested in Mary Queen of Scots, or Bonnie Price Charlie. We hold Burns' suppers but also "Up Helly Aa"
It is not unreasonable, therefore, that we should have some special consideration. All islands experience problems


such as those involving transport. Special status is granted to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. In relation to Denmark, Faroe has a special status. Faroe, Orkney and Shetland have a great deal in common. The populations have risen slightly since the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East was last there. The population of Shetland is about 20,000, that of Orkney about 18,000—which in total is not far short of the population of Faroe.
I want to stress that the people of Orkney and Shetland are interested in a special relationship with this country not because of jealousy or dislike. Hon. Members will know that we are not a jealous or ambitious people. Like other island groups we have special problems and we wish to discuss our own future in those terms. We have a different history and identity of our own but we do not want to be used as political pawns.
The situation does not arise simply because of oil. The present situation does not arise solely because oil has been discovered. Of course oil has had a great impact. It has brought troubles as well as benefits. Shetland has sacrificed a good deal because of the oil, as has Orkney to some extent. Landscapes have been spoiled and local industry disrupted because of the high wages paid by the construction companies. We do not want to rest our case entirely on oil, although it is an important factor which I shall argue more strongly in discussions on future amendments. However, I emphasise now the danger of disruption of industry.
I come to the amendment. I have never believed that if the Bill went through and there was devolution in Scotland, Orkney and Shetland could simply continue as before. Let us consider what that would mean. As far as I can see, the objection to the amendment is that we shall be left in the air. What would our position be? The law of Orkney and Shetland is Scottish law. What would happen on appeal from the sheriff court? Would that go to the High Court in London? Would we change our law, or what? These may not be insuperable difficulties, but clearly they are difficulties.
We are crofting counties. As far as I know, crofting counties do not exist in

England. That is a form of land tenure peculiar to Scotland.
Our education is Scottish, and any Orkney or Shetland boy or girl who wants to go on to university looks first to Scottish universities.
In their general services and trade, Orkney and Shetland are largely dependent on Aberdeen, and the health service is connected with hospitals in Aberdeen. Therefore, if we are to exclude Orkney and Shetland from the Bill, what will happen to them?
I take it that the islands would have no representation of their own at Edinburgh at all. Therefore, all the laws about crofting and so on, if still applied, will be passed through an Assembly in which they are not represented.
Critical as we are of all Governments, particularly the present Government, I am conscious of the fact that very often we do not get an utterly bad deal from the Government—I do not want to put any ideas into the Secretary of State's mind. However, we find that there are people in Edinburgh, civil servants and so on, who understand our situation. Presumably, we should be entirely cut off from them. We should have to explain the niceties of the Russian fleet at Lerwick, and so on, and the fact that Bergen to us is nearer than Aberdeen. All this would have to be explained in London. Therefore, there are difficulties.
I can hardly think that we would be treated simply as English counties. I suggest, therefore, that we must look at a more sophisticated method in this matter. Here again I quote from the letter written by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister apparently thinks that the Shetland County Council wanted to remain under the Secretary of State for Scotland and expected him to deal with all the matters with which, indeed, the Scottish Assembly, if the Bill goes through, will have to deal. At the end of his letter the Prime Minister says,
The Government could not justify the cost, complexity and confusion of creating new and unique relations between Lerwick and London.
There is something in that. I do not wish to give away the game, but there is something in it.
What I would have suggested was that had the Government put down their


amendment to enable a referendum to be held—which they have again said they will do—we would then have seen whether the people of Orkney and Shetland liked the Bill. We would have known that. My impression is that they do not like it, but it would be foolish to jump the referendum. If there is to be a referendum, I presume that it will be on the lines of that held in relation to the Common Market and that there will be an Orkney result and a Shetland result —perhaps as embarrassing to me as the last one. However, having had that, we should have firm ground to go on.
I believe, then, that the only way to go about the matter would be to set up some sort of commission to see how much was to be done in Edinburgh and how much in London. We cannot be left in the air, attached by some non-existent umbilical cord to London.
I do not rule out the possibility of organising our constitution in accordance with what is already done in, for example, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. It is very noticeable that the Isle of Man, with a total upper limit of direct taxation of 21¼ per cent. and no surtax, death duties or anything like that, has managed to maintain the full panoply of social services. Though the Isle of Man is a bigger and, at present richer island. If it became apparent at a referendum that we wanted the same thing, I would advocate a commission to discuss how the wishes of the people of Orkney and Shetland could be put into effect. We have learnt to deal with the problems of small communities which want independence.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman make a very interesting comparison with the Isle of Man. Has he considered the fact that the Isle of Man has no Member at Westminster?

Mr. Grimond: That is a very delicate subject. I asked a Member of the House of Keys to come to Orkney and Shetland during the Christmas vacation. At the end of a meeting, he was asked whether he considered it a very great handicap that the Isle of Man was not represented at Westminster. I am ashamed to say that he answered "No".
5.15 p.m.
I return to the point on which I began. I have now put down a new clause which I hope will give effect to a special relationship for the islands if the referendum shows that they want it. What also concerns me is that we have yet to consider the amendments that I have already tabled at the request of the islands. We have yet to consider other parts of the Bill. For instance, we have yet to consider the amendment that the islands should each have one member of the Assembly, to which they attach considerable importance.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will look at the amendments that are already on the Notice Paper with sympathy. I shall certainly be very much influenced in my future conduct in relation to the Bill by the Government's response to the needs of my constituents.

Mr. William Hamilton: The whole House is grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) for making an appearance, in view of the instructions that he has had from hospital. It is a measure of his devotion to his constituents and his great courage, if not foolhardiness. The whole House will wish him a very speedy recovery.
The speech that the right hon. Gentleman has just made is an indication of the closeness with which he associates himself with the interests of his constituents. His remarks about the amendment before us are very apposite. The amendment probably does not meet the wishes of the islanders. I doubt whether any amendment could do that. Judging from their voting record at the last General Election and previous General Elections, it is very difficult to know what they want.
No one knows where the Liberal Party has ever stood on anything, yet repeatedly over the last 27 years the islanders have returned the right hon. Gentleman. In that respect it is important for the House to have regard to the amendment on the question of a referendum for the islanders. That amendment, I gather, has not been selected. It seems to me, however, that a referendum is the only way to ascertain their views.
This pinpoints the fundamental philosophy behind the whole Bill. We are


seeking to devolve some decision-making from this place in London to further parts. It is the attempts to do that which are being called into question by the islanders. They are saying that the bureaucrats nearer to them in Edinburgh are a damned sight less acceptable than the bureaucrats 400 miles further away. Therefore, when we talk about the danger of remote government, we must not assume that government will be better because it is nearer. On the contrary, I think that the Shetlanders are justified in their suspicion that they will get much more of a raw deal from the Edinburgh Mafia than they would from the Whitehall mandarins. That is the great dilemma into which the Government have got themselves.
This is my first engagement on the Bill. It will not be my last. However, I doubt whether 20 Members in the whole House really want the Bill out of conviction, including the Front Bench. I leave it at that, except to say that we shall not satisfy large sections of the community in Scotland, still less the remoter parts of it, by seeking to bring government nearer to them. What they want is no government. Basically, those in the islands are anarchists. The remoter one is from the centre, the more anarchial one becomes, because the more suspicious one is. If we bring the thing that they fear most nearer to them, will they be more pleased? Of course not.
That is precisely what the Shetlanders and Orcadians are saying—"Do not bring Government nearer to us; we are doing very well, thank you very much, out of those remote people in Whitehall". No one knows that better than the right hon. Gentleman. He admitted as much. He did not go a little further and give a gracious compliment to the Government for giving his constituents more than 90 per cent. of all the expenditure in which they engage, in housing, roads and so on; but that is the case. I doubt very much whether they would get that from Edinburgh. They suspect that they would not get it.
The greatest demands would be made from the Strathclyde Region. Strathclyde would insist that the Shetlanders and Orcadians should not be treated so generously. The SNP says that the greatest area of social deprivation in Europe is in

Strathclyde. Of course that is right. It would be said "We shall not spend that sort of money on the Shetlands and Orkneys. We shall spend it all in Strathclyde." Moreover, that is where the votes are to be found. We know where the votes are, too, but my Government and Tory Governments have given this degree of aid to the peripheral areas, including Orkney and Shetland.
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was right when he said that some of the islanders seem to prefer links with Whitehall and Westminster to links with Edinburgh. On the other hand, it is not certain that a majority feel that way. There is no suggestion—the right hon. Gentleman has not made it—that Shetland should declare a sort of UDI, should get out of the Bill, should get off the bandwagon that now seems to be rolling.
I do not know whether it is true but it is said that some Shetlanders feel that they should support control from Edinburgh as that is where it is already. Most of the activities that take place in Shetland are already devolved to Edinburgh. The decisions are taken not in London but by civil servants in Edinburgh. Shetland and Orkney have done extremely well from that arrangement.
The right hon. Gentleman played down the effect of oil, which has dramatically changed the situation. There was a small piece in The Times yesterday in which it was indicated that the oil revenues will come to between £50 million and £100 million—that is before the oil runs dry—for a total populace of 30,000.
I remember Ian Clark and others coming to this place not to see the SNP particularly but to meet my right hon. Friend who is now the Minister of State, Department of Energy, Dick Douglas and myself. For what purpose did they come here? They came to get a Private Bill through the House of Commons. Dick Douglas, my right hon. Friend the now Minister of State and I flew to Shetland and had lengthy discussions with Ian Clark and all the members of the council. I pay a genuine tribute to the great ability of that man and his determination to ensure that the community will not be taken for a ride by the oil companies.
Together we ensured that the House of Commons safeguarded his community's interests. Remote government paid great


dividends at that time. Let no one despise government because it is remote. That was a great example of how a relatively small population could send representatives to this place to argue and discuss matters with Members who had no obvious connection with the area but who knew when justice was being threatened. As a result, they received what is probably the most important Private Bill to have passed through the House of Commons for decades.

Mr. Grimond: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but will he remember that there are other amendments that are designed to safeguard the important matter of oil, to which he has drawn attention?

Mr. Hamilton: I accept that and I shall support those amendments. I have made a resolution that I shall not support the Government throughout the Bill. "When in doubt, vote against the Government on this Bill" is my motto. I entirely accept what the right hon. Gentleman said. We must get a firm assurance from the Government that, whatever the outcome of these debates, the position of the Private Bill in relation to Orkney and Shetland will be safeguarded. However, that tears to shreds the idea that once we get an Assembly, we shall somehow go on the road to independence and that the revenues from oil will be Scottish revenues.
The Shetlanders have never made that claim although they have had a much greater claim to the oil than anyone from Edinburgh, Glasgow or anywhere else. They have always accepted that it is United Kingdom oil. All they have said is that there should be safeguards in the Private Bill to ensure that their interests are safeguarded after the oil has run dry so that there will not be a barren land. In fact, that is what they have achieved. The Private Bill was the proper way to go about the matter and they found the response from the House of Commons to be extremely sympathetic and generous.
I presume that the Government will not accept the amendment, but we must get assurances either now or subsequently that the interests of the Shetlands and Orkneys that are embodied in the Private Bill will be safeguarded come what may,

whether the Assembly comes about or not. I think that the Shetlanders and Orcadians would accept such an assurance if it were given now or at a later stage.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it not fundamentally impossible to give devolved decision-making to the Assembly and at the same time write in guarantees?

Mr. Hamilton: That is the dilemma that the Government face. They have put themselves into this mess—I did not put them into it—and they must get themselves out as best they can. My hon. Friend poses a genuine dilemma and it is for the Government to remove themselves from it.
I hope that they will give some sort of assurance to the islanders, but if they do that, there will be others in England as well as in Scotland and Wales who will say "Why give this special treatment to the islanders? We in the North-East"—it may be the North-West or any other remote part of the United Kingdom—" demand the same treatment." Once we seek to give special treatment to certain areas of the United Kingdom within the ambit of the Bill, other Members from other parts of the United Kingdom will demand similar treatment.
I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller) is in the Chamber. She will rightly say that London is suffering from many problems. They may be different problems but they are certainly problems. She will say that London is suffering from social and economic problems and that it demands special treatment and special Bills—for example, Private Bills.
In that way we get ourselves into greater and greater messes as we seek to devolve all sorts of responsibilities to the different parts of the United Kingdom. That is why I very much regret that we are embarking—we are only at the preliminary stages—on an extremely complex and highly undesirable Bill.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: The Bill has been conceived, regrettably I believe, along nationalistic lines. I suppose one might say that it has been conceived along historic lines too. The proposal is to divide the country, like Gaul, into three parts—a Scottish part, a Welsh part and an English


part. But why stop there? Why, in the case of Scotland, only go back to the situation as it was in 1707? Why do that when in the case of Wales we go back —here I confess that my history is perhaps a little rusty but I believe this to be the case—a couple of hundred years earlier, to Tudor times when England and Wales were amalgamated?
I wonder what is so sacrosanct about having to deal with Scotland as it is now, or as it has become, with Wales as it has become, and with England as it has become. I must confess to being rather a fundamentalist. I should much rather keep things the way they are and have one United Kingdom. But if that is to go, and to the extent that there are to be separate Parliaments or Assemblies, which is what the Bill sets out, I prefer to go back much nearer to the beginning of things, to the earlier and more natural boundaries that existed a long time ago.
I do not know what that would mean in Wales but in England I imagine it could mean a heptarchy. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but that is what we are doing. We are proposing to break up the United Kingdom. Therefore, why stop at Scotland, England and Wales as they are now? Why not go back a little further? I am entitled to make that suggestion because it is appropriate on this amendment.
5.30 p.m.
I do not know what the situation in Wales would be, because I do not know the history of that country. I believe that in England it would amount to the restoration of the heptarchy, while in Scotland in about the year 1,000 there were four well-defined kingdoms, which might well be resurrected. There were the ancient Britons, from whom I am proud to say I descend, who were settled in Strathclyde, there were the Scots from Ireland settled in Dalriada, in the Highlands there were the Picts, and in the East a polyglot mixture with more in common with the people of the South in what is now England than with the rest of what is now Scotland.
It was in recognition of this fact that I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) wanted to exclude the Grampian Region from the area to be subjected to the control of the Assembly. I thought that was a good

idea. My hon. Friend's amendment was not selected, but the same principle of going back to the beginning applies to these amendments—namely, that of excluding Orkney and Shetland from the scope of the Bill. That is a concept which I very much support.
When one is engaged, as the Committee now is, on a major constitutional change which will have the effect of partially disrupting the former unity of Britain—if not completely destroying it, as I fear—we are entitled to look not just at Scotland as it now is or even as it was in 1707, but at Scotland as it was long ago. We are also entitled to look at other parts of Britain to see how they have been dealt with in the meantime.
As is well known—and this matter was referred to in a persuasive speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson)—the Shetlands came to Scotland only comparatively recently. They were not part of the original Scotland created by the amalgamation of the four post-Roman States which I have described, nor were they even acquired during the period of baronial rivalries in the thirteenth century, which is now so curiously regarded as the period when a Scottish sense of nationalism was first created, although the fighting was not national but dynastic, the warlike AngloNormans quarrelling among themselves as usual. The Shetland islands came to Scotland as a dowry in the fifteenth century. They are closer to Bergen than they are to Edinburgh.
At a recent conference at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, the deputy convenor of the Shetland Council, as reported in The Times on 8th January this year, said:
We see no advantage to Shetland in such devolution… It is worth noting that Orkney holds similar views".
Those are views with which one can easily sympathise. To those distant islanders, the people on the mainland are a remote and alien race. Ethnically, they have less in common with the Scots than they have with England.

Mr. John Lee: What the hon. Gentleman is saying about racial origins is interesting and may be true, but is it not the case that, irrespective of the sources from which the various people came, they have for


many years been under the same legal jurisdiction? Indeed, I recollect a master in the English law courts saying that in matters of the law Scotland was a foreign country.

Mr. Galbraith: That is why I do not like the Bill at all. If the hon. Gentleman had heard my speeches on this subject on earlier occasions, he would have had no doubt that I am against the Bill. I dislike it, I hate it, I have no love for it. But if one is to start to split up Britain, why stop at Scotland? Why not take the integral parts of which Scotland is composed and deal with them? That is what I am trying to say in supporting this amendment.
I repeat that ethnically the Shetlanders have much less in common with the Scots than they have with England, half of which was at one time subjected to Danelaw. Therefore, they are both Scandinavians. That is something they have in common. There is a great similarity in stock between the islanders and much of England. This probably explains the confidence of the Shetlanders in Parliament because of their Scandinavian background, and it also explains the apprehensions which they have voiced about an Assembly.
The islanders are well aware that what has created the voting strength for the SNP is the acquisitive desire of SNP Members to get their hands on what they call Scottish oil. The right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) may laugh, but that is the situation. He knows that that is what created support for his party. It is only the oil that has made him leader of his party, and he would not be here otherwise.
The acquisitiveness displayed by the SNP, which its members unfortunately have managed to distribute throughout most of Scotland, naturally worries the islanders whose whole economy has been disrupted as the result of the exploitation of the oil. They do not have much faith in the impartiality of an Assembly that will be dominated by a single part of Scotland, in a way that no part of Britain can dominate Parliament or affect its impartiality and equal sense of responsibility for all parts of Britain. This is what Parliament is able to pro-

vide, and it is what the islanders fear will be missing in the Assembly.
To quote again the deputy convenor:
It is reasonable to expect that the Assembly's chief care must be the alleviation of unemployment in the industrial belt.
In those circumstances he asked
What consideration is likely to be given to outlying areas?
The answer, I am afraid, is very little consideration, indeed. If some parts of Britain feel remote from Parliament and neglected by it at present, that sense of remoteness and neglect will be strengthened a hundredfold in areas far from the Assembly's power base, such as Orkney and Shetland.
What should we do to meet what I believe are legitimate fears? We can hardly make such a radical change in the government of Britain as to set up two new territorial Parliaments without considering whether Scotland makes an effective territorial unit. If it does not, how should we deal with these parts of Britain which are near to Scotland but which feel a keener sense of kinship to Westminster than they do to Edinburgh?
Fortunately, Orkney and Shetland are not the only offshore islands which compose Great Britain. As well as these Scandinavian appendages dynastically attached to Scotland, we have at the other end of the kingdom the Channel Islands, Norman in origin and all that remains of the great territories which the Conqueror long ago amalgamated with the English Crown. The Channel Islands have their own Government, as does the Isle of Man.
It would be wrong when we have this precedent which has worked well for many years to force the islanders under the control of a Scottish Assembly when the islanders are not Scottish in origin and when through recent centuries, because of the common Scandinavian ancestry that they share with Britain as a whole, they have been content to be ruled from Parliament in Westminster.
That is the system which I believe should be allowed to continue. I very much hope that the Committee will support this amendment which seeks to continue the legislative status quo and not to subject the islanders to what they feel is an alien Assembly in which they have no faith and from which the only escape


might be an eventual declaration of UDI. That seems to be a needless risk to take. It is one which the acceptance of the amendment to retain the status quo will easily, simply and fairly avoid.

Mr. Dalyell: I declare a genuine interest in Shetland which I hope goes far beyond that of being simply an anti-Assembly pawn in the anti-Assembly argument.
Before I became a Member of Parliament I visited Lerwick many times as a director of studies on the ship school "Dunera". Indeed, I have the happiest memories of the Shetland pupils who used to come aboard. They were the only group of pupils in the British Isles who had no embarrassment and would suddenly lay on a concert in a foreign port with their fiddles and their own culture. Like other hon. Members, I have Shetland friends.
Within the past month I have been talking to Shetland councillors and in particular to James Jamieson who came to address the anti-devolution meeting on Tyneside to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) has referred.
Other hon. Members have spoken about oil. I would only say that with regard to oil the Shetlanders are not being greedy for themselves. They think it is British oil.
They want some of the proceeds to overcome their problems but in my opinion it is emphatically not a matter of Shetland being greedy at all.
What James Jamieson said to us, to the English authorities at Tyneside and to people like Bill Sefton, Stan Yapp and Mick Campbell was simply "We are different".
He said, "We are Shetlanders. If the Scots want devolution and an Assembly in Edinburgh, they can have it. It is not our business. But we do not want to be part of it. "He emphasised:" As Shetlanders we simply want to remain part of Britain".
What they are against is a separate Scottish State. But they see devolution, and these proposals, as a halfway house towards precisely that separate State.
That is what makes them against devolution perhaps more than any other factor.
What struck me in my various conversations with Shetlanders is how they

have really thought about things. That may be the result of having to think about the Bill that they sponsored in this House. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said they are a down-to-earth people.
What they clearly see above everything else is the unreal nature of my right hon. Friend's proposals.
I am glad the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has returned to the Chamber. Although I shall not refer to him personally shall refer to the position that any Member of the British House of Commons representing the Orkney and Shetland constituency will find himself or herself in if we have an Assembly in Edinburgh.
Anyone in the right hon. Gentleman's position can vote for local government reform in London but not for local government reform in Lerwick.
He can vote for the bankruptcy laws in Birmingham but not the bankruptcy laws as they affect the island of Bressay.
He can vote for the development of tourism in Devon but not for the development of tourism on Dunrossness.
5.45 p.m.
Anyone in the right hon. Gentleman's position in this House can vote on the flora and fauna in the Fylde area of Lancashire but not on Fair Isle.
He can vote for fire precautions affecting Fulham but not in Fetlar.
He can vote on freshwater fisheries in the Folestone area but not in Foula.
He can vote for hospital facilities anywhere other than in Shetland and Scotland.
He can vote for injury and disability in Ipswich but not in the Isbister area of Shetland.
He can vote no marine works in Margate but not on marine works in Muckle Flugga.
He can vote for the marriage laws in Manchester but not the marriage laws affecting the citizens of Shetland on the island of Mousa.
The MP for Shetland can vote on matters affecting the police in Penzance but not on the Shetland island of Papa Stour.
He can vote for public holidays in the constituency of Poole, Dorset, your own


constituency, Mr. Murton, but not in the Shetland area of the Pool of Virkie.
He can vote for roads affecting Renwick but on no account on roads affecting Rochdale.
He can vote for schools in Sheffield but not for schools in Scalloway.
He can vote on matters affecting social welfare in Salford but not on matters affecting Sullom Voe.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: Is not the logical conclusion of the hon. Gentleman's interesting catalogue that those people should not be allowed to vote on these matters in England at all? They should not be allowed to vote on any matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament and should vote only on Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Mr. Dalyell: Further into the morass we go. It is a little unkind of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) to cut me short. However, I shall continue.
Anyone representing the Orkney and Shetland constituency can vote on the safety of reservoirs in Suffolk but not as they affect Sumburgh Head.
He can vote on water services in West Bromwich but not as they affect the Shetland island of West Burra.
He may concern himself with young offenders in the city of York, but on no account can he concern himself with young offenders on the Island of Yell.
That is the position in which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, or his successors, would find themselves.
My own position is exactly the same.
I can vote on policy and money for the Arts in Alnwick but not in Armadale, West Lothian.
I can vote on aerodromes at Heathrow and Gatwick but not Edinburgh, Turn house.
I can vote on buildings in Bath but not in Bathgate in my constituency.
I can vote on the burial laws in Blackpool but not in Blackridge.
I can vote on betting, bookies and gaming in my right hon. Friend's constituency of Blackburn, Lancashire but I cannot touch the bookies or the gaming laws in Blackburn, West Lothian.
I can vote on building control in Bolton but not in Broxburn, West Lothian.
I can vote on bridges maintenance regulations in Bradford but not in Bo'ness.
I can vote on land use in Leicester but not with regard to the new town part of which I represent—Livingston.
I can vote on the licensing laws in Liverpool but not in Linlithgow.
I can certainly vote on matters affecting the Severn Bridge across the Bristol Channel but in no respects can I vote on matters affecting the Forth Road Bridge at South Queensferry in my own constituency.
I can vote on shop hours in Stratford-on-Avon but I cannot vote on shop hours in the village of Stoneyburn in West Lothian.
I can vote on the water supply in Wolverhampton, but not in Whitburn, West Lothian.
I can vote on waterways in Winchester, but not in Winchburgh, West Lothian.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, can vote on the health services in Huddersfield but on no account can he vote on the health services in Harthill in his constituency.
He can vote on matters relating to the sexual offence laws as they affect Surbiton but not as they affect Shotts in his constituency.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland can vote on the succession laws in Sunderland but not in Stirling.
Under the proposed set-up the Secretary of State has a right to vote on criminology and criminal laws affecting Carlisle but not as affecting his constituency in the Craighton Division of Glasgow.
My right hon. Friend the Lord President, who has shown me the courtesy of coming into the Chamber, can vote on matters affecting the environment in Easington—but not in Ebbw Vale. [Interruption.] Does my right hon. Friend wish to intervene?
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister can vote on the financing of cultural activities in Cambridge or Coventry but he cannot touch cultural activities in Cardiff.
As the Shetlanders have perceived, it is not possible to have a legislative


Assembly or indeed a Welsh Assembly in part—though only part—of a unitary State.
That is the rock on which Mr. Gladstone's first and second Home Rule Bills for Northern Ireland perished, and it is one of the rocks on which the Government's proposals will founder within the next two or three years.
Policy in England will not be determined by me or by my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench from 80 miles north of the border, still less by the representative of Shetland from 500 miles north of the border in matters in which neither we as Scottish Members of Parliament nor English Members of Parliament have any say in Scotland.
We are discussing a proposal that is as unreal in the long term as the proposition that two and two make five.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I shall not follow the speech made by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), the greater part of whose remarks did not appear to deal with the amendment before us. There may be a case for maintaining the status quo in the argument about devolution. I totally disagree with that view, but it is perfectly respectable. There is, however, no justification for the amendment, which is nothing less than a mischievous piece of sabotage.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) spoke about the unique characteristics of the people of his constituency. Those people do not have Gaelic, whereas the people of the Western Isles have Gaelic. The people of Orkney and Shetland do not wear the kilt. I am sorry to say that that is also largely true of us. When one of my constituents passes anyone wearing a kilt, he says "That will be the English laird." The people of the Western Isles were under Norse domination for 400 years, but, for all that, we regard ourselves as part of the Scottish nation.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hill-head (Mr. Galbraith) went right back in history, but the simple answer he would have given to his teacher when he was asked what were the nations of the British Isles was "Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales"—perhaps in a different order. He would not have referred to Scotland either with Shetland

or without Shetland, because Shetland is an integral part of Scotland, although its links with Westminster date only from 1832. The 144 years that have passed since then have to be placed against the 238 years during which Shetland was part of an independent Scotland, as assuredly it will be again.

Mr. Rifkind: If the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that Orkney and Shetland are in exactly the same position as his own constituency, why, when the SNP candidate for Orkney and Shetland as early as 1968 pledged that the SNP would support full autonomy and Faroe Island status for Shetland, did he, first as the SNP candidate and later as the Member for the Western Isles, never make a similar pledge for his own constituency?

Mr. Stewart: I did not need to because that has been part of SNP policy. There has never been any doubt about that.
During the Second Reading debate I called in question just how representative of the people is the Shetland Islands Council. We must take into account what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said about the views of his constituents. Many are of the working class or small businessmen, and so on, and cannot get to meetings. At the last election 75 per cent. of the voters on Shetland and Orkney voted for a form of devolution, either that proposed in the programme of the successful candidate, the right hon. Gentleman, or in that of the representative of my party. So 75 per cent. were for home rule for Scotland. There is no indication that the Shetlanders wanted to break away.
On 5th January the convenor of the Shetland Islands Council said:
It's not that we are trying to preserve the links with Westminster, it's that we are trying to preserve the future of Shetland.
On 12th January, the council agreed on safeguarding amendments, for accepting the islands into the Bill, and it was said that the council was seeking to preserve certain distinctive features of Shetland under a system of devolution. That is in order, acceptable and understandable. The Shetlanders do not want to be outside the devolved system, as has been suggested by certain hon. Members.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the attitude of the


SNP to the two safeguards that the Shetland Isles Council requested and that have been built into the amendment? The new clause in the name of the right hon. Member for Shetland and Orkney (Mr. Grimond) sets out two principles: first, that the Zetland County Council should remain untouched and, secondly, that the rate support grant administration should be unaffected by the existence of the reserve fund.

Mr. Stewart: I shall deal with both those questions as I come to them.
It is obviously more advantageous for Shetland and Orkney each to have a representative in an Assembly of 150 than it is for Orkney and Shetland to share one Member of Parliament at Westminster.
Have hon. Members who have spoken in support of the amendment considered the difficulties in which Shetland would be if it opted out of the Scottish Assembly? There would arise the problem of the connection with the hospital in Aberdeen. The people would come out of their rights under the Crofting Acts. They would no longer be in the area covered by the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Eighty per cent. of the trade is with the Scottish mainland.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Is the right hon. Member really saying that no Scottish person ever crosses the border to go to hospital in England?

Mr. Stewart: Certainly not. I am not saying that. Certainly that sort of thing will continue to some extent with urgent cases. An arrangement exists between Orkney and Shetland and hospitals in Aberdeen, and that arrangement might be seriously damaged if the Shetlands had this independent status envisaged in the amendment.

Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Member aware that the people of Berwickshire are used to going to hospital in Berwick, which is in England? How does he get over that one?

Mr. Stewart: Berwick is a long way from Shetland.
I confirm that we in the Scottish National Party accept that Orkney and

Shetland should have separate seats in the Scottish Assembly. We also accept that they should have special planning powers and arrangements and that their rights under the Zetland Bill should be preserved. My party has given a complete guarantee on that, and, in so far as we are able to do so, we stand by that guarantee.
We guarantee that the oil revenues and royalties will be preserved. The houses to which the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) referred were associated with a development which was needed in the extraction of oil, so the Government were only too interested to get those. They were not given as a free gift.
As a local authority, Shetland has a long tradition of being tough. In the 1960s the Westminster Government had great difficulties over demands from Shetland for control of its own water supplies. This tradition of toughness goes back a long way and hon. Members should not mistake it for a belief that these islands should go it alone.

The Secretary of State for Scotland(Mr. Bruce Millan): If the right hon. Member is stating Scottish National Party policy on Shetland, perhaps he could answer this question which the Shetland Islands Council posed to the Prime Minister in a letter. It asked whether Shetland would be granted independence from Scotland, if Scotland received complete separation from the rest of the United Kingdom. Would it be part of the SNP's policy to allow Shetland to go its own way?

Mr. Stewart: If at the end of the day, in a popular vote, the people of Shetland indicated that was their wish, the SNP would not stand in their way. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the oil?"] Scotland has other oil apart from that.
Amendment No. 14 is mischievous, and is subversive of the interests of the Scottish community. It is an attempt to use the Shetland people as a Trojan horse to defeat the aspirations of the Scottish people. It goes far beyond the demands of the Shetland people and their council—a council which I believe is not representative of the people of the islands. I hope the amendment will be decisively rejected.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I begin by taking up a couple of points made by the right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). Perhaps it is in order on this occasion to extend to him congratulations on accepting an award from the London Government, but perhaps we should let that pass and not be too backhanded with our compliments.
I find the arguments about the Shetlands being an integral part of Scotland a bit strange coming from a nationalist. To argue, as he did at one stage, that the right to independence was abated or extinguished according to the length of time of the association with a larger unit is very odd coming from a nationalist.
In technical matters the right hon. Member was rather laying heavy stress on the links between Orkney and Shetland and Aberdeen in the National Health Service. That link was not always the same, as the present link, because the hospital board for the North-East of Scotland once took in Orkney and Shetland. With the reorganisation of the National Health Service, both Orkney and Shetland argued very strongly that it was necessary for them to have a separate area health board. They got this, but they found that it was not possible to carry out all the health board's services in the islands, and therefore they had to maintain links with Aberdeen in order to provide a proper health service.
If that can be done in the present situation, there is no practical reason why those links should not remain if Orkney and Shetland opt out of devolution and remain with the Parliament in Westminster. These practical arguments are not an answer to the case we must face.
The right hon. Member for the Western Isles can give no guarantee whatsoever about the behaviour of the Scottish Assembly. He can put his views and those of his party, but no hon. Member can possibly give any guarantee to Shetland, Orkney, or any part of Scotland that within the compass of the powers devolved to the Scottish Assembly a certain position will be preserved. That cannot be done. If one says it can be done, one cannot have devolution.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I accept that point. This House has the power to repeal the Zetland Bill.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, of course this Parliament, if it decided, could repeal any piece of legislation which is on the statute book at present. But on the point being argued, I still maintain that the right hon. Gentleman cannot give guarantees as leader of his party that certain things will happen after the Assembly is set up. He can say that that is his policy at the moment, but there is no legal way in which that policy can be guaranteed, and it would be wrong for him to give that kind of assurance.
In relation to the question of whose oil is it—Shetland or Scottish—we must consider the kinds of feelings that people have in different parts of Scotland about devolution and the whole question of where we stand in constitutional matters. I shared a platform with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland at a meeting in Aberdeen when we discussed the White Paper on devolution. In that audience there were a reasonable number of SNP supporters who indulged in a little bit of heckling. That is perfectly fair, and I make no objection to it.
I was doing my usual thing of pouring some scorn on the slogan "Scotland's oil". I was then confronted with the danger of using too much irony in a political speech. I said that the SNP was not adventurous enough in its slogan. All the oil was off the Shetlands and the East Coast, and therefore the slogan should be "East of Scotland's oil". I went on to ask why any money from the revenues should be given to Glasgow. I almost got a standing ovation —the SNP supporters almost took me seriously. I had to say "Hold on, it is just a joke."
Perhaps I could make my name by forming the Aberdeen National Party and declaring UDI. I could use the same kind of avaricious arguments, because the oil, geographically, is closer to Aberdeen than it is to the West of Scotland and therefore I could say that we should get all the benefit from it. However, I would never put forward that point of view because I do not take that narrow attitude about the oil revenues.
The amendment before us poses the first challenge to the whole purpose of devolution. If, in having brought forward the Bill and the White Paper, all that we have said in the discussions has


any real meaning, it is that the Bill is an attempt to bring decision-making nearer to the people.
We all know the discussions which have gone on for more than a decade about bringing government closer to the people. But simply to bring it closer does not guarantee better government, and if it is brought closer that does not mean that the people at the receiving end necessarily approve of what is being done just because it is nearer to them. An example of this is that although there have been changes in local government, allegedly to bring local government closer to the people, if anything local government is held in even greater contempt now by the people who suffer under its administration.

Mr. Galbraith: There is a difficulty in this expression "bringing government closer to the people". It is already close to the people in Scotland. Does that expression mean bringing the legislation closer to the people? Will the hon. Gentleman say whether it makes any difference whether the legislators are sitting in Edinburgh, in London, or in a sputnik orbiting the world? What difference does it make? Will he explain that, because I do not understand the phrase?

Mr. Hughes: The burden of my remarks so far has shown that I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) that it makes no difference where the legislature sits. I would not argue that the Assembly would be any better for being situated in Aberdeen rather than Edinburgh. It would make no difference to the people of the Grampian area or of the city of Aberdeen. However, what is being said is that because of the vast bureaucratic machines which exist, the sort of legislation which is brought forward is not sufficiently sensitive to the needs of the people in the localities. That would be as true of people in Scotland as anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
We often feel that legislation which deals with the whole of Scotland does not reflect the peculiar problems of the North-East of Scotland, let alone the Shetlands. So, bringing the legislation closer to the people geographically means nothing. But if we are speaking about

the reflections, the aspirations of people, it is odd that we should be saying that we do not know whether they like the brew we have concocted, but they are going to have it.
If the people in the Shetlands do not want devolution, why should we in this House say that they must have it? In my view, that is contrary to the whole spirit of the devolution Bill and to the whole purpose behind it. People under stand that there are difficulties in splitting off the different regions, and we shall be debating later the question of the different regions or the mainland as opposed to the Shetlands. The feeling has been growing up that certain guarantees ought to be written in.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and others have mentioned the Private Bill which the Shetlands promoted. They are asking for certain guarantees about that. I noticed that the British Medical Association is asking for certain guarantees about the Health Service. As I said on Second Reading, almost all areas of public policy in Scotland are saying that since devolution is to be introduced and since they may not be enthusiastic about it, they want certain guarantees written into the Bill.
I want to stress that there is no possibility of any kind of guarantee being given about powers which are devolved to the Scottish Assembly. It would be quite wrong to say that such a guarantee could be given. People, especially those who are enthusiastic about devolution, must tell the people of Scotland not to expect some kind of paradise with the Assembly, that somehow the whole machinery of government will change. They must be told that there will be warts and that they will have to take the warts along with the rest.
The problem for those among us who fully support devolution, who tend to be over-enthusiastic—especially the SNP Members who try to be all things to all men—is to decide what we should do about this dilemma. The objections listed in the very interesting document sent to us from the Shetland Islands concerning the worries there about devolution could be shared by every area of Scotland outside the west central belt, and even there the people will have some objections about what might happen.
6.15 p.m.
The people in Aberdeen say to me that they are worried that the reasonably favourable treatment that we have had in the North-East might be affected. Of course, no one will ever admit that his area has had favourable treatment in case that prejudices the area's case in talks with the Scottish Office or the Treasury about loans and grants. However, we in Aberdeen and the North-East have certainly done particularly well out of revenues from the central Exchequer. But we in Aberdeen feel that these might be taken away or reduced in some way because of the natural pressure—pressure that I would support, incidentally—to give more aid to the west central belt, which has the greatest of problems.
We have to try to find even more money so that whilst the share of the total made available to West Central Scotland is increased, and rightly, it is not done at the expense of other areas. We are, however, left with the difficulty of what to do about that. It would certainly be very curious if, having set out to provide a devolution Bill to remove certain powers from the House of Commons, we were to say that nevertheless we would impose our views on the Shetlands, the Orkneys, or any other part of Scotland which wished to have nothing to do with the Bill.
I am glad that the SNP has been converted from its new imperialism. At one stage it was claiming that the Shetlands were part of the United Kingdom, or part of Scotland, and that there was no question of independence for the Shetlands, although the SNP was prepared to allow maximum devolution. The right hon. Member for Western Isles has made an extremely important statement which I hope will be blazoned across the pages of the Press and Journal edition which goes to the Orkneys and Shetlands tomorrow morning. It was that the SNP is guaranteeing that if the Orkneys or the Shetlands, or any other part of Scotland, such as the North-East, decides by some definable means of determining popular support that it wants its independence, the SNP will not stand in the way.
We have to find a method of allowing areas in Scotland the right to choose. This dilemma places me in a difficulty which I shall not go into in detail today. The main debates on the referendum will come later. I dislike the idea of the

referendum for a whole number of reasons—the precedents it sets and the continual way in which referenda can be used to keep the whole argument about devolution going. I simply say here as a marker that I hope that the Assembly will not be given the power to hold referenda as and when it likes on questions of constitutional change vis-à-vis the Assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament. However, a referendum might be a way of determining precisely where we stand on these matters.
If one of the questions on the referendum is "Do you want independence?", and if the Western Isles were to vote in favour, I should say let them have it here and now, and we might then see a change of attitude.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) was good enough to admit that those of us who are opposed to a Scottish Assembly and devolution in the terms in which they are set out in the Bill have a strong case in principle and logic. I concede to him in his separatist point of view that he, too, has a good case. It is one I dislike intensely. It led him to refer to the amendment as being mischievous and as being designed almost as a wrecking amendment to prevent those who seek to confer more power on the Scottish Assembly from doing so.
It might seem that way simply because there is no detectable principle in the Bill. Therefore, when one is trying to draft amendments based on a real principle, the principle of maintaining the unity of the United Kingdom, the very consistency of what we are trying to do makes our efforts appear as though we are changing our ground. This arises simply because we are trying to deal consistently with the different facets of the Bill, which itself is remarkably inconsistent.
As the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) pointed out, the Bill contains all the inherent contradictions of Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bills, Nos. 1 and 2. The right hon. Gentleman and others spoke about the aspirations of the Scottish people, but that is a phrase that begs every question of principle as much as the Bill does.
As far as one can detect, any principles —other than electoral advantage or disadvantage—among those who support the


Bill, there appear to be three. The first is self-determination, the idea that the different parts of the United Kingdom have a right to determine their separate nationalities. Secondly, there is nationality, although that is confusing to some of us who are not clear to which of the nations of the British Isles we belong. Thirdly, there is the historical principle. Is every separate country, every separate nation or State entitled to exist separately? The absurdities of the lengths to which this could be taken in Scotland alone have already been pointed out.
I want to look at the three principles with regard to Orkney and Shetland. Most parts of the British Isles have one thing in common. They have all, at one stage or another, been conquered by Nordic peoples—whether Norse, Viking or, later, Norman. All parts of the British Isles have at some stage felt the heavy hand of the invader. Scotland suffered twice over with the Norse invading from the north and the Normans from the south. Some of the Normans later produced great Scottish leaders, such as Robert Bruce. But that is about all we have in common. Certainly, the use of history as an argument for Orkney and Shetland retaining their ties at a time when Scotland and England are breaking theirs is ludicrous. The ties between Scotland and Orkney and Shetland are not, historically, as strong as those between other parts of the British Isles.
Basically, the same point is true of any nationality argument and argument founded on racial origin. These ought not to come into the argument at all. One of the great strengths of the United Kingdom is that our people can claim, with justice, to be British and that they can be proud of that whether their origins are English, Welsh, Scots, Irish, or even Polish, Ukranian or from other parts of the world. Being British is the factor that we have in common, and many people have been proud to die for it. This argument is now being used to beg the question; for Orkney and Shetland have as much in common with other parts of Britain as they have with Scotland.
As to self-determination, that argument has been strongly advanced by the Minister. One of the reasons given for Scotland having a greater measure of self-government and, perhaps, complete

separation is that the Scottish people want it. But the people of Orkney and Shetland do not. So, on this basis, Orkney and Shetland should be allowed to be excluded from the demands made by the rest of Scotland. Self-determination is a dangerous principle. Claims for self-determination could be made by Cornwall or other parts of the British Isles on national, cultural, historical or any other basis. This is a method of fragmenting our nation that can do nothing but damage.
Orkney and Shetland have much to fear. It is perfectly clear that if the Bill is passed the whole system of local government in Orkney and Shetland—and they have one that is different from the rest of Scotland—would be dependent not only on a body that does not yet exist and for which we do not yet know the ground rules, but on an Assembly that, however it is constituted, will be numerically dominated by a relatively small area in the centre of Scotland. Fears have been expressed by the people concerned that, because of political pressures, they might lose much of what they have gained. It is feared that the Scottish Assembly would seek to draw what is available from the islands to help areas of need on the mainland.
Speaking as a friend, I am only moderately pleased to see the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) in his place today. For his own sake and that of his constituents, he ought to return to hospital. He should be the subject of admiration from all of us because he has set such an example by attending at all.
He asked what sort of alternative could be put forward. That is why I regret that circumstances so combined that we were unable to debate and vote upon Amendment No. 479 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). It would have made the inclusion of Orkney and Shetland in the Bill dependent upon a new clause to be moved later. I hope that we shall be able to discus that new clause in detail and that an appropriate amendment will be made on Report. As a result of neither of the amendments relating to the new clause having been selected for debate, we have only one amendment upon which to debate the issue and to express our views.
We support Amendment No. 479 which has not been called. I hope that the Committee will support Amendment No. 14 and recognise that it is a pointer for the future. Unless the Government make it plain that they are willing to meet us, we should show our intention to pursue this line by voting.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: One of the difficulties in discussing this amendment is that we are discussing an exclusion amendment before reaching the safeguarding amendments. The safeguarding amendments would enable us to know how satisfactory the proposition might be to the people of Orkney and Shetland and exactly what we are voting for and what we are excluding. This is one of the difficulties to which I hope attention will be given so that, whatever the result of this and later amendments, we shall have the opportunity to make sense of the situation in accordance with the needs and wishes of the people of Orkney and Shetland.
I was astonished that the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) could find no principle in the Bill. He spelt out the three principles which he believed motivated the supporters of the Bill, and they were mainly those enunciated by the SNP. The right hon. Gentleman came close to agreeing with those principles.
The right hon. Member mentioned nationhood, the aspirations of the Scottish people and self-determination. One of the problems is that the SNP does not regard self-determination as meaning that people can determine not to be separate. For the SNP it must be a determination to be separate—and that is a great narrowing of people's rights. It rejects any view which is opposite to its own as somehow denying the right of people or of a nation.

Mr. Jim Craigen: Does not this amendment in some respects thrust the SNP into the position of being a unionist party—almost a replacement for the old Unionist Party?

Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friend is right. The SNP is in an extremely embarrassing position. It is not only a unionist party in that sense, but a centralist party. That is the reason for its hatred of the existing local government structure in Scotland.
The right hon. Member for Farnham spoke about nationhood and used the extraordinary phrase about a nation for which people have been proud to die. Surely it is equally true that people have been prepared to die for Scotland. I have not forgotten the magnificent contribution made by the Scottish National Party to campaign to save the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. I objected to the crude opportunism and sheer hypocrisy of the SNP in that campaign. It jumped on the bandwagon. I also objected to the campaign because of the many Scottish names on war memorials throughout Scotland. I was not going to back any campaign to save the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, and that was the nadir of the morality of the SNP.

Mr. George Younger: I organised that campaign and was never aware of the slightest assistance from the SNP.

Mr. Buchan: Of course the SNP helped. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) was prominent in the campaign. Admittedly SNP members do not do much practical work, but they make a lot of noise. They were in the campaign, as I discovered at meeting after meeting.
I do not want Scottish people to die. I do not want a nation for which people can be proud to die. I want a nation for which people can be proud to live. The right hon. Member for Farnham was verging on the argument used by the SNP and put himself in a difficult position.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hill-head (Mr. Galbraith), in his historical account, suggested that for equivalency we should have to go back beyond 1707. I should have thought that we would need to go back beyond 1603 to the restoration of the Heptarchy. The hon. Gentleman was almost putting the cart before the Hengist and Horsa. Again, the hon. Gentleman gave the SNP its ludicrous argument.
Scottish nationhood did not derive from the battle of Bannockburn, and the Declaration of Arbroath had more to do with democracy than with nationhood. It should be remembered that the rejection of the overriding authority of the Pope in that declaration was more the beginnings of democratic expression than the birth of nationhood.
We are in grave danger of allowing ourselves to be affected by this argument. When the right hon. Member for Farnham said that he failed to see any principle in the Bill, he failed to see that, if it means anything, it is about an extension of democracy. That is the kernel of the matter.
Two propositions have been put before us by the Shetlanders. I know more about Orkney because I was brought up there, but the Shetlanders are putting these points more strongly. They want either a special relationship to guarantee some of their situations or total exclusion.
We shall be discussing the first proposition later, but the Shetlanders are saying that they want no part of an independent Scotland. That is where the difficulties arise with the SNP and its unionist position of regarding Orkney and Shetland as part of Scotland. The SNP members are the last people who can argue this, because at party conferences before oil was discovered they said that if Orkney and Shetland wanted autonomy they would grant it. When oil was discovered, the slogan became "It's Scotland's oil". It is interesting that the only SNP candidate who did not use that slogan but referred to the oil as North Sea oil was the candidate in Orkney and Shetland.
That is the dilemma of the SNP members; they defended their original position not on the basis of democracy or that people should have more freedoms, but on the ethnic argument. Margo MacDonald defended an autonomous Orkney and Shetland on ethnic grounds until I reminded her what that would mean in terms of oil. The SNP is in confusion over its policies, and the ethnic argument preceded the discovery of oil.
The SNP now adopts a crude unionist and imperialist position which is even cruder than British imperialism at its crudest. The SNP tells Orkney and Shetland that they can have their independence but that Scotland will keep the oil. I do not think that even the British Empire ever adopted that attitude.
The slogans of the SNP are not always related to its policies. Its criticisms and fears of a referendum are unrelated to its manifestos, which say that it is hoped to write into the constitution of an inde-

pendent Scotland provision for a referendum on any topic on which there is not a two-thirds majority.
There is also no relationship between the slogan "It's Scotland's oil" and the promise spelt out by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) that Orkney and Shetland could have independence if they wished. In a speech he made at Avonbridge, according to the Falkirk Herald, the hon. Gentleman said that
the issue of Orkney and Shetland declaring independence was a complete red herring ".
That was a few years after the SNP had promised independence if the islanders wished it.
Even if they did gain independence"—
the reference now is simply to the possibility of their gaining independence; the tone is beginning to change—
international law was such that it was debatable if they could lay claim to any oil. and certainly not the bulk of it.
So the SNP is spelling out the crudities of its imperialist and centralising unionist attitudes by saying that, if the people of Orkney and Shetland expressed their will in that way, the SNP would take them to international law to prevent it.
That is a pretty crude position that the SNP has taken up towards a section of people who, the right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) said, are an integral part of Scotland. If it sees them as an integral part of Scotland, it is towards a section of the State of Scotland itself that the SNP is directing these crudities.
There are good reasons why the Orcadians and Shetlanders should be anxious about the situation. The trouble is not just the question of distance, which people have got all wrong from the beginning. I have said many times that the girl who served at the counter in Joe Lyons' shop across the square, who saw Parliament every day, felt every bit as remote from government as someone in the Shetlands. Remoteness from government is not a geographical or horizontal expression; it is an expression of the relationship between those who govern and those who are governed.
The real devolution we want, of which the Bill is only a preliminary, is a devolution of power up there to the ordinary


people down here. That is more important than the devolution in the Bill, but I welcome the Bill because the two things go together. However, the devolution of power-making to the ordinary people is far more important. So the Orcadians and the Shetlanders base their case on the fact that that kind of devolution would mean that their having a say in their own position may not be given effect within an Edinburgh Assembly.
I want them to be a part of that Assembly. I know the Orcadian attitude to Scotland. When I was a child in Orkney, we used to look south over Scapa Flow to the northern coastline. We did not say "There is the mainland", as they would on Skye or Lewis. We said "There is Scotland." We saw ourselves as being separate; Scotland was in the distance. Our great phrase in Orkney was that Scotland brought us nothing but dear corn and greedy ministers. [Laughter.] I am talking about ministers of religion. I exonerate the Government Front Bench.
As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, there is no great love in the island for Mary Queen of Scots. The notable figure who is still remembered there is Patrick Stewart. The Stuarts are not greatly loved there.
A lack of totality of feeling has superseded some political discussion in Scotland. There is a feeling not so much of remoteness as of some ability to stand aside and consider the Scottish situation This has emphasised to the islanders the importance of their democratic expression. It is a very good democratic expression. In contradistinction to the imperialist attitudes of the SNP towards them and the greedy attitudes of the SNP towards the other parts of the United Kingdom, they make it clear in their own document that the oil revenues should be entirely used in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole. They go on to say that they see no advantages in the Scottish Assembly for them and they list many disadvantages.
6.45 p.m.
Basically, they are saying that if they can get the guarantees for which they ask, they are prepared to be a part of Scotland, not on the basis of the stupid ethnic arguments of the SNP—in the twentieth century of all things—but be-

cause of the need to define and express their own freedoms. That I approve of. I am told that we cannot write such guarantees into the Bill because any Assembly could change them. But I hope that we shall none the less. The only guarantee against change in the long run is the will of the people.
Ail laws should perhaps be changed if the will of the people so determines, but we must write some guarantees into the Bill. I say that for one important reason. Ironically, the people who are trying to ensure that the people of Scotland share in the resources of Shetland oil are those of us who resist the independence demands of the SNP. It is the SNP which, if it carried out its policy decisions about freedom for Shetland and separation from the rest of the United Kingdom, would prejudice the possibility of using Shetland oil in the interests of the people of Scotland.
Therefore, those who are in favour of devolution are saving the faces of the SNP and permitting such a speech as we heard from the right hon. Member for the Western Isles.

Mr. Cordon Wilson: The hon. Gentleman said that the policies of the SNP in relation to Shetland would mean that the people of Scotland would not get a fair share of the oil. Has he any idea of the quantities of oil which lie off the Scottish mainland, particularly the quantities discovered in the past two years? Would he like to say here and now what percentage of the oil Scotland will get as part of the United Kingdom? It will be very little, if any.

Mr. Buchan: I think that the revenues from oil should be used throughout the United Kingdom according to the needs of the people of the United Kingdom. I was talking specifically about Shetland oil, in relation to the SNP policy, and not to Scottish oil. If there were a separate Scotland, the oil that Scotland had would lie not directly east of Scotland but to one side of a median line. The hon. Gentleman failed to tell the Scottish people that. Such a line would leave in English waters either four or three of the main oilfields discovered, with seven in Shetland waters and either five or four in Scottish waters, with one exception which has happened recently.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Does my hon. Friend also agree that the doubts expressed by the Shetlanders are similar to those expressed by the majority of people in Scotland about the possibility of complete separation?

Mr. Buchan: Yes, I do. One hears this time and again. But this is a matter that I am prepared to leave for a referendum to decide. I trust in the desire of the people of Scotland. [Laughter.] Hearing that laughter, I say in advance that if the Scottish people agree to independence in the referendum I will accept that decision on the spot. Would the SNP give us the same guarantee if the Scottish people said "No" to independence?

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Would the hon. Gentleman accept it this way—that he would have to accept the result of the referendum carried out at that time but that that result would not stop him, if his personal convictions took him further, pressing for the status of Britain which he wanted? The argument is that the referendum is binding as at that time but that it does not stop us—as it did not stop many people when it came to the Common Market—pressing for a review of that decision.

Mr. Buchan: I think that what that means is "No". It is interesting to get that answer. The nationalists have been treating Scotland with contempt. They have been expressing throughout Scotland a Western European version of the cargo cult—one day the cargo will arrive and solve all our problems. That will not wash any longer. Truth is beginning to work through, and it is truth with which I am concerned.
We must recognise the immediate problems facing the Orcadians and Shetlanders, no matter what the Committee decides on the amendment. Since I believe in devolution, and that Orkney and Shetland should be related to Scotland through devolution, it is important that the SNP should not destroy the security of the islands. By no means the least of the reasons for a referendum involving an independence question is to help to give that guarantee to the people of Orkney and Shetland, who have been generous in their attitudes.
I hope that the amendment will be rejected, but I hope also that that will

not mean that when we come to the safeguarding amendments we do not find a means to give expression to the views being put forward fairly by the Shetland Islands Council and, we believe, the people of Shetland.

Mr. Norman Lamont: I should like to take up some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), but first I must declare an interest as the bank for which I work has a special connection with the Shetland Islands Council. It causes me a little embarrassment to declare that interest, because I have a much more longstanding and powerful reason for participating in the debate, the one to which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) kindly referred. That is that I was born in Shetland, lived there and went to school there for some years, so I have naturally taken an interest in its affairs for some time.
A few weeks ago I went to Shetland at the invitation of the Shetland Islands Council, with the knowledge and consent of the right hon. Member who represents Orkney and Shetland with such distinction. We have been reminded in this debate of some of the odd facts of Shetland's geographical situation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew-shire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson), who moved the amendment, spoke of the proximity of Shetland to Bergen. When I went there a few weeks ago I was quickly reminded of some of the oddities of life in Shetland. One gentleman I met, who explained the difficulties of living in central Shetland, in a place called Tingwall, said that if his house caught fire and he dialled 999 he would immediately be put through to the fire brigade in Inverness. This and many other small but irksome details give the people legitimate cause for complaint.
When I went back I noticed a number of changes. When I had lived there before I had not noticed many helicopters whizzing overhead. There were no such things as taxis. Most noticeable of all, there is now the gigantic oil terminal at Sullom Voe. All this presents a gigantic task to a local authority which has never before had to deal with dual-carriageway roads and which now handles oil investments of £300 million to £400 million at a time.
I should like to pay tribute to the Shetland Islands Council, which has done a tremendous job in meeting the challenge of oil, and I would also pay tribute to Mr. Ian Clark, who did a remarkable job for Shetland. In his farewell to the Shetland Islands Council, referring to his dealings with the oil companies, he quoted Mr. Khrushchev, who once said "If you are going to skin a customer, always leave enough skin so that it can grow and you can skin him again." It may not be a very Conservative sentiment, but no doubt it served the Shetlands well in dealing with the oil companies.
Oil has brought problems to Shetland. Local industries have been threatened by the construction boom, a boom which will inevitably last for only a short period. That is what this debate is all about. The Shetland Islands Council has made special arrangements for dealing with the problem.
The situation is not quite as Labour Members have described. It is not that Shetland is like anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Shetland has various special powers through the Zetland County Council Act. When the people of Shetland saw the oil invasion coming and decided to protect their own interests, they took action to make Shetland a ports and harbour authority. They took extra planning powers and powers to restrict oil development to certain areas. Those powers have worked very well. The people of Shetland are now saying that they would be grateful—and I would be grateful if I could have the attention of the Secretary of State, as this is a very important point—if they could preserve the powers that they have been given by the Zetland County Council Act.
My attitude to the amendment will be governed entirely by the reply from the Secretary of State. I do not want in any sense to play the card of Shetland in the devolution debate, and my attitude is in no way influenced by my overall attitude to devolution.
The Secretary of State ought to pay very careful attention to the very reasonable request of the Shetlanders that they should be given reasonable safeguards. Their position has to some extent been misrepresented. They do not want to declare UDI. They do not want to opt

out of the Bill completely. What they are saying is that they have no great enthusiasm for devolution and they doubt very much whether devolution will do anything for Scotland but that devolution is a decision for the House of Commons. They are saying that if devolution comes they will accept it, but only if they obtain safeguards, and that if they cannot get those safeguards they will opt out.
The first safeguard they want is to see the Zetland County Council Act preserved unaltered. I cannot see why that cannot be built into the Bill. Secondly, they want the reserve fund which they have negotiated for themselves to be left intact. That fund should not be taken into account when calculating the rate support grant for Orkney and Shetland. The rate support grant formula has never worked very well or very exactly in island areas, and it has been the practice of Whitehall and St. Andrew's House not to comply with the formula in precisely the same way as it would have been applied to the mainland areas of Scotland.
That is all they are asking. It seems that the Shetlanders have a very legitimate fear and that their request is reasonable. They are not making extreme demands for independence or UDI.
For many years in the nineteenth century and the early part of this century Shetland was an extremely poor area where it was extremely difficult for people to eke out even a modest living. My right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East referred to the declining population and the emigration statistics. The ruins of deserted crofts and streaks of green among the heather, where people have tried in vain to grow grass, are memorials to what has happened in the past. People have always felt that perhaps the Shetland way of life was destined to fade away, that perhaps Shetland was not a viable community, but things have changed. It is not just a question of manna from the North Sea. The people of Shetland have negotiated a good deal for themselves and have managed to secure with their own efforts a future for themselves. They want the Secretary of State to safeguard what they have achieved. I ask him to consider very carefully and sympathetically whether he can meet what seem to me to be their eminently reasonable demands.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I had originally meant to debate an amendment aimed at removing the Grampian Region from the jurisdiction of any Scottish Assembly, in exactly the same way as this amendment seeks to remove Orkney and Shetland. I am marginally less disappointed than I might normally be at the fact that my amendment was not selected, because the reasons which the Grampian Regional Council advances for wishing to have no truck with a Scottish Assembly—the reasons which make a Scottish Assembly abhorrent in Grampian—are largely the same as those put forward by Orkney and Shetland.
I listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) said about the Shetlanders' attitude. All the qualifications which must naturally be made if there is a Scottish Assembly, all the fall-back positions, will to some extent apply in the Grampian Region. It has to be remembered that about 25 per cent. of the United Kingdom's oil reserves lie off Grampian. We have roughly the same sort of arguments on oil as Shetland, except that it has about 66 per cent. of the reserves and we have about 25 per cent.
Like other hon. Members, I have received a letter from the Shetland Islands Council. I wish to quote something said in the accompanying document because it expresses exactly what we feel in Grampian. In my view it justifies this amendment. The document says:
The Council believe that the majority of Shetlanders are satisfied with the present status quo and with what has been achieved for Shetland.
That is exactly what I feel the people in Grampian will say. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said that we will never admit that we are totally satisfied in case that would prejudice future negotiations. Of course, it is the case that things could be better than they are. However, by and large we in the North-East reckon that we have had a fair crack of the whip from Westminster, just as Shetland does.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: Mr. Douglas Henderson (Aberdeenshire, East) rose—

Mr. Sproat: I will not give way at the moment.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Member is the only Member of Parliament representing Grampian who is expressing those views.

Mr. Sproat: I was referring to the Grampian Council and was reading a letter from the Shetland Islands Council. It is interesting to note how the SNP has been massacred in elections in Grampian.
The Shetlanders advance a number of fears. The first is that the Bill will lead to an independent Scotland. I shall not go into all the ramifications of that. I believe that the Shetlanders are right. The Bill is the slippery slope and Grampian is rightly as fearful of that slippery slope as is Shetland. I find it extraordinary that the SNP is prepared to pay so little attention to the emotions felt by the Shetlanders while building everything on the emotions of what it says the rest of the people of Scotland feel.
No doubt during the course of this debate we shall hear some pretty crazy statements. We have already had home rule for the Hebrides promised to us this afternoon by the right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) who leads the SNP. We have also had home rule for Shetland and Orkney promised. Why not home rule for Grampian or the Isle of Arran?

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: What about the Isle of Thanet?

Mr. Sproat: I do not think that that would be within the power of the right hon. Member for Western Isles. No doubt he would grant home rule for the Isle of Thanet if he could. This shows up the ludicrous nature of the independence argument. This is the real fear.
Secondly, the people of Orkney and Shetland and of Grampian feel that in any Scottish Assembly they would be dominated by Strathclyde. It is no use hon. Members saying that this feeling is wrong and that people in the Orkneys and Shetlands or in Grampian do not feel dominated by a Westminster Parliament. Everyone knows that the position of Strathclyde in Scotland is unique. We believe that it would exercise its influence to the detriment of North-East Scotland and Orkney and Shetland.

Mr. Buchan: rose—

Mr. Sproat: I shall not give way. The hon. Member spoke for a great deal of time and there will be other occasions for him to speak.
The third argument which the Shetlanders put forward is that after a Scottish Assembly comes into being, if it does, changes could be made in the local government organisation in Scotland which would disadvantage Orkney and Shetland. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames and others have tabled amendments, which I shall support, which seek to safeguard the position of Orkney and Shetland with regard to any changes in local government administration in Scotland which might be proposed.
While I would support such amendments, I know perfectly well that if a Scottish Assembly came into being and proposed to alter the Scottish local government administration to the detriment of Shetland nothing that anyone ever said in the House of Commons would make a tuppenny-halfpenny-worth of difference. It does not matter whether the right hon. Member for the Western Isles grandly pledges that his party would never support changes to disadvantage Shetland. It does not lie within his power so to pledge. Nor does it lie within the power of anyone else.
I very much fear that a Strathclyde-dominated Assembly would seek to change the local government administration in Scotland. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), who, I suppose, is a putative Member of the Scottish Assembly, told us that the Assembly would seek to change the local government administration. I am sorry that he is not here today to tell hon. Members who put their faith in such amendments that they count for nothing. The Shetlanders are right to fear that a Strathclyde-dominated Assembly would change things to the advantage of Strathclyde and the disadvantage of Shetland.
There are fears concerning control over oil. The point has been made that what Shetland has won by its initiative and negotiating skill, particularly the skill of Mr. Ian Clark, could be taken away. Again, no number of amendments in this Parliament would ever bind a Scottish

Assembly and prevent the removal of those controls which Shetland has won.
The same sort of point was made about the rate support grant. If the formula were to be changed by a Scottish Assembly, does anyone think that a Strathclyde-dominated Assembly would change it to the advantage of Shetland? There is not a hope of that. I would have some sympathy with this action. An Assembly must direct itself to the area of greatest deprivation, namely Glasgow. If there were any changes in the formula they would, of course, be to the advantage of the west central belt of Scotland and not to the advantage of Orkney and Shetland or Aberdeen and Grampian.
Another fear of the Shetlanders was that a Scottish Assembly would either be granted, or would take upon itself, the power to compel local authorities to levy further rates, which would be a form of taxation. These rates could be levied in Grampian or Orkney and Shetland. They would be used by a Scottish Assembly to alleviate the deprivation in the west central area of Scotland. Once again, we find these well-founded fears—held by almost everyone outside Strathclyde—that a Scottish Assembly would be used to help solve the problems of Strathclyde at the expense of the rest of Scotland. That is one of the prime reasons why Orkney and Shetland said in the document that I read that by and large it is satisfied with the status quo. What Orkney and Shetland said goes for Aberdeen and the North-East.
I commend the Shetlanders for saying exactly what I think when they say that they are British. That is the important thing, and that is why their generous vision does not regard the oil as Shetland oil. If anyone had a right to claim the oil as his own, it would be Shetland. It has never said that. It has never put forward the selfish and crude policy of the SNP—that it is Scotland's oil. It might have had some justification for saying so but it has not done so. It has said that the oil must be used for the benefit of the United Kingdom.
I quote again from the Shetland letter:
It is right that this income"—
that is, income from the oil—
should be used in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole.


That is the right attitude. Shetland is basically satisfied with the way the broad administration of the Government works.
We all want to see reform within the present institutions, but the present institutions remain. The people of Orkney and Shetland do not want, as does the Scottish National Party, the oil to be used selfishly for the benefit of that small geographical area which is closest to where the oil is found. They say that they see no benefit whatsoever for Shetland in a Scottish Assembly. Equally, the Grampian Region sees no benefit whatsoever for it in a Scottish Assembly. It sees many disadvantages, some of which I have mentioned.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), whose devotion to duty we all admire, said that the amendment does not put a positive case. It does not. One cannot put everything in a single amendment. But to make the Bill non-applicable to the Shetlands and, I hope, to the Grampian Region, would be a good start. We could make a constructive approach if we got rid of Orkney and Shetland from this detestable Bill.

Mr. Younger: I think that the whole Committee should be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) for moving the amendment and enabling us to discuss the wishes of the people of Orkney and Shetland with regard the Bill.
I add my voice to those who have said how much we appreciate the particular effort made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I am sure that his constituents will be extremely proud of the way in which he performed his duty today.
The Government have said that they intend to be flexible in dealing with the details of the Bill. I think that the treatment of Orkney and Shetland is the first test of whether the Government are prepared to be flexible when good cases are made.
We start from the position that practically every hon. Member who has spoken has said that it has been made crystal clear that the people of Orkney and Shetland and their elected representatives are greatly concerned, to put it no higher,

about the effect of the Bill on them and their relationship with the central Government, wherever it may be.
Secondly, it has been made plain from both sides of the Committee that the members of the councils in Orkney and Shetland are clear on the question of separation as proposed by the Scottish National Party. They do not want anything to do with it. If the debate were not worth while for other reasons, it has certainly been worth while for the remarkable admission that we squeezed out of the right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), who apparently committed his party to being prepared to grant complete independence to Orkney and Shetland from his independent Scotland together with all the oil within their areas. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will stick by that commitment.
Thirdly, with regard to the general principles of devolution enshrined in the Bill, it is clear from the representations that we have all had from people in Orkney and Shetland and their councils that, whatever the merits or otherwise of the Bill, they do not like its provisions as it stands. Surely, if we mean to do anything, we should try to meet their wishes if we can. That is the real purpose of the amendment. They have asked us to try to get the essential safeguards that they want written into the Bill. The amendment is the first vehicle to try to achieve that purpose.
In view of the selection of amendments —I make no complaint about it—we cannot discuss the full details of what we propose in place of the Bills provisions. However, it is worth mentioning in passing that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has put down a series of amendments and New Clause 13 which, he said, had the full approval of the councils concerned. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have tabled New Clause 14, and we shall be tabling other amendments to make clear our suggestions on this matter.
The basic safeguards which we have been asked to put before the Government are simple and clear. Briefly I shall repeat them because they are easy to understand. The Orkney and Shetland Islands Councils and the people who elect them would like the


special arrangements which they negotiated with Parliament, now enshrined in the Zetland County Council Act 1974 and the Orkney County Council Act 1974, safeguarded for the future, subject only to any further decisions which may come from the House of Commons. I ask the Government to consider seriously whether they can write that or a similar provision into the Bill.
7.15 p.m.
Secondly, because of the funds which the people of Orkney and Shetland will be able to build up as a result of the special arrangements which have been made, they ask for the assurance that a future Scottish Assembly will not, off its own bat, be able to decide to reduce the amount of rate support grant to which the Orkney and Shetland Islands Councils might be entitled by an amount equivalent or related to the moneys which they may be getting under the Acts to which I have referred. It seems eminently reasonable that responsible councils in their position should ask for those safeguards.
The amendment as it stands is not complete. The Secretary of State may shelter, as Ministers often do, behind the fact that the amendment as it stands is not complete, but it has been tabled with the intention of asking the Government to make a clear commitment today. We should like the Secretary of State to say that the requests made by these two councils are reasonable and that he will accept the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland or similar amendments tabled by us, or, if he cannot do that, at least that he accepts the spirit of the amendments and will try to meet these points as quickly as he can. That was the purpose of tabling the amendment. The Conservative Opposition stand four square behind the feelings of these councils in what they want to achieve by way of safeguards. We intend to give them our support.
We hope that the Secretary of State will at least accept the principle of what we want to do. If he does, that will be satisfactory to us. If he cannot give a clear undertaking of the kind for which we have asked, we shall feel bound to press the amendment to a Division as a token of our support for what the

people of Orkney and Shetland clearly want.

Mr. Millan: I am glad to be able to answer this debate while the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is still present. I pay tribute to him for his devotion to his constituents' interests, which he has shown by coming here today with considerable discomfort and making a speech on their behalf.
The Government recognise the special problems and circumstances of Orkney and Shetland. Indeed, we need no greater tribute to them than the fact that both the councils concerned will be happy to continue dealing with the Westminster Government, including the Scottish Office. A number of hon. Members have talked about dealing with Westminster as distinct from Edinburgh and the islands being happy to deal with Whitehall and Westminster and not happy to deal with Edinburgh. But most of the islands' dealings with the Government are already with Edinburgh. Most of their transactions with the Government are with the Scottish Office, which is located in Edinburgh. Therefore, it would not be quite as major a change to have to deal with the Assembly as some hon. Gentlemen seem to believe.

Mr. Galbraith: It is true that administratively there will not be much change in the bureaucrats dealing with these matters, but the Assembly will control the Executive which orders the bureaucrats. That is very different from the House of Commons controlling the bureaucrats in Edinburgh. The point is that Westminster is impartial and that the Assembly will not be impartial. Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with that point?

Mr. Millan: I know the point which has been made. I was saying that most of the day-to-day dealings that the islands have with the Government at the moment on devolved matters are not with London but with the Scottish Office in Edinburgh. I was arguing that their special problems are recognised by the Government in a number of different ways.
There has been little dispute about exactly what the Shetland Islands Council wants from the Bill as we have it. I have the council's views in writing, but I do not have the same precision about the views of the Orkney Islands Council


although I understand that basically it takes the same attitude. It is not asking to be excluded from the Bill, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said. It does not want that at this stage at least and, therefore, the present amendment is not in line with the views of the councils.
The councils are asking for safeguards. It is true that if the safeguards are not written into the Bill they may take a different view, but we are not at that point today. To write Orkney and Shetland out of the Bill at any time during its passage through the House would be undesirable and it would be at least premature to do so until we have had debates on the amendments which have been tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland which meet the expressed wishes of the councils in a way that the present amendment does not.
It is not possible for the Committee simply to write Orkney and Shetland out of the Bill because that would leave them in limbo. They would be neither part of of Scotland and subject to Scottish legislation nor a part of England. That would create a difficult situation. The present arrangements for the government of Orkney and Shetland are integrated with those of Scotland. Matters involving local government, education, housing, health and so forth are covered by legislation for which I am at present responsible but which will later be covered by legislation for which the Assembly will be responsible. It is not possible or practicable to cut off Orkney and Shetland from all that legislation by such an amendment. The passing of an amendment of that kind would petrify the legislation which applies to Orkney and Shetland and make them subject to another kind of legislation which has not been drawn up with their particular circumstances in mind.
On the grounds of sheer practicability, it is not possible to accept the amendment. If we wrote Orkney and Shetland out of the Bill, we would have to write a constitutional solution into the Bill.
One of the amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, which we will discuss later, makes the point that if, after the Bill is passed, the people of Orkney and Shet-

land decide in a referendum against the Bill, there should be a constitutional conference. That obviously strengthens my argument that one cannot write them out of the Bill without providing them with a special constitution. Therefore, on grounds of practicability alone I cannot recommend the House to accept the amendment.

Miss Harvie Anderson: The Secretary of State has conveniently missed the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). This is the only peg on which we can hang our hat because of circumstances not entirely under our control. Therefore, unless the right hon. Gentleman can give the safeguards for which my hon. Friend asked, hon. Members will be put in the unfortunate position of having to support the amendment, which, I am the first to accept, has its deficiencies.

Mr. Millan: It is not accurate to say that the matters which concern Orkney and Shetland cannot be debated in the Committee. At the beginning of the debate the Chair ruled that the fact that some of the more specific amendments had not been linked with this one did not exclude them from debate and consideration later. It is not for me to decide or give a view on the selection of amendments, but I accept that later we shall come to some of the specific amendments which will enable me to deal at greater length with the matters raised by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger).
Whoever is responsible for the difficulty, it is not of my making. I have to deal with the particular amendment which is before the Committee. Nevertheless, since the Chair said that we can make incidental references to later amendments without excluding them from greater consideration later, I shall be able to reassure the islands councils about their worries when we consider later amendments.
Hon. Members have not sufficiently appreciated that many of the matters that concern Orkney and Shetland are non-devolved matters. For example, the problems arising from oil development are non-devolved matters. I hope to deal with these issues in more detail later. Many of the fears over the Zetland County Council Act 1974 will be shown to be groundless because many


of the provisions in that Act will not be affected by the Bill. The impact of the Bill will be on devolved powers and will not affect that legislation.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I ask the Secretary of State to reconsider his argument that to write Orkney and Shetland out of the Bill would create difficulty. He is obviously reading from a brief, and the definition of a civil servant is someone who can find a solution to a problem. The passing of the amendment would mean that part of the United Kingdom that happens to be Orkney and Shetland would still come under the control of this Parliament and the rest of Scotland by another Parliament. That does not represent a difficulty, because this Parliament will have to legislate for parts of Scotland. To write Orkney and Shetland out of the Bill would be a sensible and constitutional arrangement.

Mr. Millan: I am sorry that I gave way. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had listened to the debate, as other hon. Members have done, he would know that I have already dealt with that point at some length. I shall be able to give assurances about the specific issues which worry the councils not by writing special provisions into the Bill but by demonstrating later that many of the worries are groundless because the Bill does not affect those problems.
I cannot commit the Assembly to a particular formula for rate support grant, nor can I commit it to a particular way of organising local government in Scotland. Incidentally, I am amazed to see how anxious hon. Members are today to maintain the present system of local government in Scotland, because I am continually told that one of the first things that the Assembly ought to do is completely to rewrite local government in Scotland. If the Assembly is involved in that, I have no reason to believe that it would not be impressed by the same kind of case—all-purpose authorities for Orkney and Shetland—which impressed the House of Commons and the previous Conservative Government, though not, incidentally, the Wheatley Commission in its majority report.
7.30 p.m.
The fact is that Governments are not as completely insensitive to local repre-

sentations as people outside often believe. The particular provisions for an all-purpose authority, which apply not only to Shetland and Orkney but also to the Western Isles, have very much to commend them. Again, I do not believe that that is something that will be seriously disturbed by the Scottish Assembly, but I cannot give absolute pledges.
I do not know why the hon. Member for Ayr is holding up his hands in horror. We have made it absolutely clear that when we devolve certain powers to the Scottish Assembly the powers will reside there. They will not be subject to day-to-day and bureaucratic interference by this Parliament, by a United Kingdom Government or by a Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Millan: Perhaps I may complete the point.
Therefore, while there are certain matters on which I shall be able to reassure the island councils, I do not want to mislead the Committee into believing that when we reach the later clauses I shall necessarily be able to give an answer on every individual point that would be wholly satisfactory to the island councils.
I think that I have done—

Mr. Dalyell: It is unreal. It is so unreal.

Mr. Younger: Perhaps I may press the right hon. Gentleman on this matter. I am not asking him to accept any amendments. I am not asking him to accept any particular method of doing this. However, will he not accept that it would be extremely undesirable if the Shetland and Orkney Island Councils found that the moneys they have rightfully accumulated under present legislation could he deducted from their rate support grant, and that if that were so they would have a legitimate grievance? If the right hon. Gentleman accepts that that is a legitimate worry and says that he will try to find a way of putting the matter right, that will help a great deal. However, it is no use simply saying that the Assembly will have complete power to do what it likes.

Mr. Millan: I am reluctant to anticipate amendments that have not been selected for discussion. As I understand it, we shall come later to the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, and I have no doubt that at least some of those will be selected.
We are at an early stage of the Bill. There will be a Report stage. It is not as though anything I say on this amendment is the last word that will be said on Orkney and Shetland during the whole passage of the Bill. That is by no means the situation.
All that I have done is what I understand from the original statement by the Chair to be in order. I have anticipated in general terms some of the later amendments and I have made incidental references to them. I have said that we shall discuss these matters in detail later. But I do not want to give undertakings this evening that would be misleading to hon. Members or to the islands councils as to what I might be able to say when we reach those later amendments.

Mr. Dalyell: While I can quite understand that my right hon. Friend cannot give any guarantee as to what an Assembly would or would not do, may I ask him this question? Is any foreseeable Assembly likely to be content not to get in its hands a grasp of at least a share of the oil revenues? Whatever Assembly there is, can it possibly be content not to have a go at getting a share of such revenues?

Mr. Millan: Again, that is a matter which will arise later. However, I can say now that there is nothing in the Bill, as far as I can see, which would enable the Scottish Assembly to take for itself the revenues which the Orkney and Shetland Islands Councils are obtaining under their local legislation.

Mr. Leon Brittan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Millan: No, because we shall be dealing with these matters in detail on specific amendments that deal with them. I am doing what I am asked to do, which is to make incidental references to them when speaking on this general amendment, which by any standard is not the kind of amendment that the Shetland and

Orkney Islands Councils want for this Bill.

Mr. Brittan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Millan: No, I shall not.
I particularly wanted to conclude my speech while the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was still able to be with us. I was about to finish my remarks by referring to the question of the referendum, because the right hon. Member mentioned it. There is a difficulty in all of this matter in deciding exactly what the people of Shetland want as compared with what the Shetland Islands Council wants.
As a parallel, from the references to the Strathclyde authority this afternoon one might have imagined that the Strathclyde regional councillors and the leadership were absolutely enthusiastic about the Bill. It happens that the leader of the Strathclyde Regional Council has all along been lukewarm to the whole question of the Assembly in Scotland, and, for that matter, there is a strong body of opinion in the COSLA generally that is, to say the least, lukewarm and in some cases positively hostile to the Bill. It is not simply a question of two particular local authorities in Scotland having reservations about the Bill. I say that to the Committee generally and particularly to those who are not Scottish Members. Some of the reservations about the Bill are shared by a large number of other local authorities in Scotland. No doubt these are matters that we shall be able to discuss later in relation to other amendments.
I was going on to say that through the referendum at the end of the proceedings we are providing an opportunity for the people of Scotland as a whole to take a decision about the question of an Assembly for Scotland. Therefore, at the end of all the debate on the Bill, when we have the Royal Assent, we shall provide an opportunity for the people who will be most directly affected by the Bill to make an ultimate decision on the Bill. It is certainly the Government's intention to put down the provisions about a referendum at a stage early enough to enable Parliament to see what is involved in the referendum and, perhaps, to judge on a number of other


matters, including the kind of amendment with which we are now dealing, in the context of the general referendum arrangements that will ultimately be written into the Bill.
However, on the basis of the amendment before us and on the basis that acceptance of the amendment would produce an absolute absurdity, putting

Shetland and Orkney into limbo, which I am sure no hon. Member wishes to do, I must ask the Committee not to accept the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 170. Noes 189.

Division No. 38.]
AYES
[7.39 p.m.


Aitken, Jonathan
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Neubert, Michael


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Newton, Tony


Awdry, Daniel
Gray, Hamish
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Banks, Robert
Grist, Ian
Osborn, John


Bell, Ronald
Grylls, Michael
Ovenden, John


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, John (Harrow West)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Biffen, John
Hannam, John
Page, Richard (Workington)


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Palmer, Arthur


Blaker, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Parker, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Percival, Ian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Heffer, Eric S.
Pink, R. Bonner


Brittan, Leon
Hicks, Robert
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hordern, Peter
Prior, Rt Hon James


Brotherton, Michael
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Raison, Timothy


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hurd, Douglas
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Buck, Antony
James, David
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Budgen, Nick
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Bulmer, Esmond
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rhodes James, R.


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Channon, Paul
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rifkind, Malcolm


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Clegg, Walter
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rooker, J. W.


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Kinnock, Neil
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lamont, Norman
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Cope, John
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Shersby, Michael


Corrie, John
Lawrence, Ivan
Silvester, Fred


Crouch, David
Lawson, Nigel
Sims, Roger


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sinclair, Sir George


Dalyell, Tam
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Skinner, Dennis


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lloyd, Ian
Spence, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Loveridge, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Durant, Tony
Luce, Richard
Sproat, Iain


Dykes, Hugh
Macfarlane, Neil
Stainton, Keith


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Emery, Peter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Maude, Angus
Tebbit, Norman


Falrgrieve, Russell
Mawby, Ray
Townsend, Cyril D.


Farr, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Trotter, Neville


Fell, Anthony
Mayhew, Patrick
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mills, Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Forman, Nigel
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wall, Patrick


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Moate, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Fox, Marcus
Molyneaux, James
Wiggin, Jerry


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Monro, Hector
Winterton, Nicholas


Fry, Peter
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Younger, Hon George


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral



Gardiner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Goodhart, Philip
Mudd, David
Mr. Carol Mather and


Goodhew, Victor
Neave, Airey
Mr. Peter Morrison.




NOES


Archer, Peter
Bates, Alf
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Armstrong, Ernest
Bean, R. E.
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)


Ashton, Joe
Beith, A. J.
Buchan, Norman


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bishop, E. S.
Buchanan, Richard


Atkinson, Norman
Boardman, H.
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Campbell, Ian


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Canavan, Dennis




Cant, R. B.
John, Brynmor
Rose, Paul B.


Carter, Ray
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cartwright, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Clemitson, Ivor
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rowlands, Ted


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sillars, James


Coleman, Donald
Kaufman, Gerald
Silverman, Julius


Concannon, J. D.
Kerr, Russell
Small, William


Conlan, Bernard
Lambie, David
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lamborn, Harry
Snape, Peter


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Lamond, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stallard, A. W.


Crawford, Douglas
Lipton, Marcus
Steel, Rt Hon David


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Litterick, Tom
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Cryer, Bob
Loyden, Eddie
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Davidson, Arthur
Luard, Evan
Stoddart, David


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
McCartney, Hugh
Stott, Roger


Deakins, Eric
MacCormick, Iain
Strang, Gavin


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Dempsey, James
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Doig, Peter
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dormand, J. D.
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Eadie, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
Thompson, George


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


English, Michael
McNamara, Kevin
Tierney, Sydney


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Madden, Max
Tinn, James


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Magee, Bryan
Tomlinson, John


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Marks, Kenneth
Torney, Tom


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tuck, Raphael


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Gilbert, Dr John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Golding, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Ward, Michael


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Watkins, David


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Watt, Hamish


Grocott, Bruce
Noble, Mike
Welsh, Andrew


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oakes, Gordon
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Harper, Joseph
Ogden, Eric
White, James (Pollok)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Halloran, Michael
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Hatton, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Henderson, Douglas
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Williams, Sir Thomas


Hooson, Emlyn
Pardoe, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Horam, John
Park, George
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Parry, Robert
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Penhaligon, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Huckfield, Les
Prescott, John
Woodall, Alec


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Reid, George
Woof, Robert


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Hunter, Adam
Robertson, John (Paisley)



Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Roderick, Caerwyn
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Janner, Greville
Roper, John
Mr. Ted Graham.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'They do not affect', and insert
'Nothing in these provisions shall be construed as impairing or in any way affecting'.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Alan Fitch): With this we may also take the following amendments:

No. 17, in page 1, line 9, leave out They do not affect' and insert
'Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to affect adversely or shall detract from, harm or weaken'.

No. 20, in page 1, line 9, leave out from first 'Kingdom' to end of line 11 and insert—

'Nothing in this Act shall or shall be construed in any way to alter or diminish the territorial and constitutional identity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, nor the sovereignty of the Monarch in Parliament in all parts of the United Kingdom, nor the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it'.

No. 21, in page 1, line 9, leave out from first 'Kingdom' to end of line 11.

No. 22, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'do' and insert 'shall'.

No. 370, in page 1, line 9, leave out from 'not' to end of line and insert 'end the'.

No. 23, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'not'.

No. 25, in page 1, line 9, after 'affect', insert
'adversely nor detract from, harm or weaken'.

No. 26, page 1, line 9, leave out
'the unity of the United Kingdom or'.

No. 27, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'or' and insert 'and'.

No. 311, in page 1, line 9, leave out from second 'Kingdom' to end and add
'but provide for the devolution of powers which shall not hereafter be subject to interference or erosion by the Government or Parliament of the United Kingdom, save with the consent of the Assemblies hereinafter mentioned'.

No. 435, in page 1, line 9, leave out from second 'Kingdom' to end of line 11.

No. 362, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'supreme'.

No. 29, in page 1, line 10 after 'authority', insert 'soveignty and competence'.

No. 363, in page 1, line 10, after 'Parliament', insert 'or European Community institutions'.

No. 30, in page 1, line 10, leave out
'to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it'.

No. 31, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'make laws for' and insert
'govern and legislate for and to enforce the law in'.

No. 32, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'or any part of it'.

No. 34, in page 1, line 11, at end add
'nor shall they alter the prerogatives, rights, duties, privileges and conventions of the Crown as the constitutional monarchy of the United Kingdom'.

No. 35, in page 1, line 11, at end insert
'and no provision, power or privilege granted in any section of the Act may be so used in a way which might in any manner affect the unity of the United Kingdom'.

No. 36, in page 1, line 11, at end insert
'or the obligations undertaken by treaty or Act of Parliament whereby the United Kingdom is bound to act or refrain from acting in certain ways'

No. 37, in page 1, line 11, at end add
'nor shall any provision of this Act be used to alter the process whereby laws are made for the United Kingdom'.

No. 481, in page 1, line 11, at end add
'nor shall they affect the government of the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom.'

Mr. Brittan: We are debating Amendment No. 16 and a number of related amendments. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not deal in detail with the other amendments, most of which seek to deal with the same problem which led us to table Amendment No. 16.
There is need for an amendment at this point in the Bill because the second sentence in the Bill contains a vital statement about the effect of the Bill, a statement which is blatantly untrue. To say that the provisions of the Bill
do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom of the supreme authority of Parliament
can only be described as a wilfully and dangerously misleading statement. It is a bland assurance that is not justified by the nature or the contents of the Bill. It is objectionable not only because it contains an untrue statement, but because it amounts to a political rather than a legislative statement. It is a pious aspiration placed in a Bill rather than put forward as a piece of law making.
In as delicate and as important an area as this, nothing could be more dangerous to include in an Act of Parliament, for purely political purposes, an expression of hope that the remainder of the Bill totally belies. The place for statements of a political kind such as that contained in lines 9 to 11 on page 1 of the Bill is the hustings, where such statements can be barracked, or in Parliament, where they can be refuted. But the place for them is not the statute book where they lie mute, misleading and dangerous for the future.
Faced with a situation where the Government have chosen to put in the Bill a statement that is untrue and of a character and nature that is wholly inappropriate in legislation, those of us who are concerned about the situation have two alternatives. What can one do? One can recognise the reality of the situation—namely, that these provisions, despite protestations to the contrary, affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament in a major way—and can seek to remove


any statement to the contrary. That is a course that has attracted some of my hon. Friends.
However, the second alternative is to attempt to amend the provision so as to assert, in a slightly more meaningful way, the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament. Having considered the matter with some anxiety and care, my right hon. Friends and I concluded that we would seek to recommend to the House to follow the second of the two courses and attempt to amend the Bill to rectify to a limited extent the statement to which we have taken objection rather than to delete it altogether from the Bill.
So far I have stressed the limited extent of the correction that is possible as a result of this amendment. I am sure that the Government will recognise that it is not possible by an amendment to a clause described as "Preliminary" to rectify the damage caused by later provisions. None the less, that does not mean that nothing is worth attempting. All along we have made clear that in our view this is a bad Bill, a Bill that we opposed on Second Reading, that we oppose in its entirety, but we seek to improve it and we think that that improvement would have a beneficial effect.
By including the words
Nothing in these provisions shall be construed as impairing or in any way affecting the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament
one would provide the courts with a canon of construction that would enable them in cases of ambiguity to interpret the clauses that appear to affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament in a contrary direction. Where clauses are unequivocal and make provisions which are expressed, a construction of this kind would not rectify the mischief.
8.0 p.m.
But faced with a situation which we deplore, the best we can do is at least to insert in the Bill a limited provision that will enable the courts—whether the Judicial Committee or the ordinary courts considering the matter after the enactment of Scottish legislation—to make the assumption that anything that affects
the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament

is contrary to the wishes and intentions of the Bill unless there is an express statement that cannot be avoided. What I have said so far has been entirely based on the assertion that the Bill in its unreconstructed and unamended form affects the unity of the United Kingdom and the supreme authority of Parliament.
It is right that we should at least outline why we think it absolutely absurd to regard the Bill as not affecting the unity of the United Kingdom. I would add that the unity of the United Kingdom is not a constitutional or legal concept. It is a political one. Whether the Bill affects the unity of the United Kingdom must be a political judgment. It is not a question that can be answered by constitutional or legal niceties.
In considering whether the unity of the United Kingdom is affected we are faced by radically different proposals put forward by the Government for two of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, Scotland and Wales. At the same time, there is a recognition in that desultory White Paper on the English regions, published in a fit of impertinence, that the changes proposed for Scotland and Wales have implications with regard to the government of England. In addition, there was a request from the Government asking us to write to say which course should be taken to deal with these implications, because the Government had not made up their minds.
Faced by a proposition of that kind, faced by proposals that are quite radical in dimension with regard to Scotland and Wales, and faced by a recognition of the consequences for England, how can anyone stand up with a straight face and say that these provisions do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom? The Government have thought fit not merely to say that the unity of the United Kingdom is essentially preserved, or not materially altered, but have actually gone so far as to say that the provisions do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom at all. That is a proposition that only has to be stated to be shown to be untrue.
Talking in a political sense, and not in any constitutional or narrow legal sense, when one looks at the powers of the Government to bring to this House Scottish Assembly legislation which they


regard as likely to affect the non devolved powers, surely we have a situation in which what the Government are creating is a recipe for conflict. This House will be invited to say that the Scottish Assembly must not be allowed to pass this, that, or the other piece of legislation because it impinges on the remaining powers of this House.
In view of the provisions of Clauses 45, 46 and 47 with regard to the revocation of subordinate instruments and matters of that kind, it is quite clear that one is deliberately creating an unstable situation in which Scotland will constantly be seeking to do that which this Parliament will refuse. In that situation how can one regard these provisions as not affecting the unity of the United Kingdom?
The economic aspect of the matter is one that I mentioned on Second Reading when talking about the block grant and the negotiations for it. Do Labour Members think what is proposed by this Parliament is a fair share for Scotland —whatever that may mean—and that it will not affect the unity of the United Kingdom?
The question is also raised in a starred amendment about the position and number of Scottish and Welsh representatives in this House. That is a matter on which the Bill is totally silent. Yet the Government cannot seriously pretend that it is not an important matter deriving directly from the Bill, or that it needs no consideration.
Whatever the Government might do, many hon. Members seriously believe it inconceivable that Members from Scotland and Wales should continue to come here in the same numbers and with the same power as before. The fact that voices are raised shows the disuniting effect of these provisions within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dalyell: Mr. Dalyell Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that he is on a bad point? It is not a question of numbers. It will not make any basic difference whether there are 57 Scots, or 36, or 20, or any number one wishes. The point is that we shall come here to vote on issues for which we literally have no responsibility and for which English Members have no responsibility in Scotland. It

is a basic question of responsibility and not of numbers.

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. His attention must have momentarily lapsed because I specifically mentioned the position and rôle of Members. I would agree that the rôle of Members is more important that the number. I am not disagreeing in any sense with what the hon. Gentleman has said. The truth is that whether one considers the question of conflict or the nature of the proposals or the composition and numbers of members, this Bill reduces the unity of the United Kingdom. To pretend the contrary is to blind oneself to the reality of the situation.
Clause 1 also refers to
the supreme authority of Parliament".
No doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite will say that
the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it
remains untouched.
No doubt the Minister would say that we could present Bills in this House, even after this Bill is passed, directly affecting the situation in Scotland and Wales and taking away these powers granted by this Bill, or powers in conflict with it, or powers to repeal this Bill, or do anything else one likes. In that sense the hon. Gentleman would no doubt say that Parliament remains sovereign. That is purely theoretical.
The reality is somewhat different. If a constitutional statement of this kind is needed it needs saying in somewhat stronger terms than this bald assertion. The reality is contained in Clause 18(2) which states:
A Scottish Assembly Act may amend or repeal a provision made by or under an Act of Parliament".
It is of course right that this provision applies only within the devolved areas. It is therefore correct to say that the Scottish Assembly Act can only amend or repeal a provision in those areas allotted to the Scottish Assembly.
Parliament may intervene and pass an Act which has effect notwithstanding the provisions of the Scottish Act. Parliament may override the Scottish Assembly in that sense. But then the Scottish Assembly for the second time of asking


can pass a Scottish Assembly Act, because it may amend or repeal a provision made by or under an Act of Parliament. That is the reality.
If the Government were intent on preserving the supreme authority of Parliament, at the very least they would have said that the Scottish Assembly could within the devolved areas pass legislation repealing Acts of Parliament passed before the Scotland and Wales Bill came into effect, but in respect of legislation purporting to govern Scotland and Wales after the passage of the Act, it must follow that that legislation is specifically designed to override the Scotland and Wales Bill, and it should not be possible for the Assembly to override that legislation.
The existence of Clause 18(2) without that qualification, technical as it may seem, illustrates clearly that it is just as untrue to say that the supreme authority of Parliament is not affected as it is to say that the unity of the United Kingdom is not affected. If the Bill goes through, it will be theoretically possible for Parliament to pass measures in the devolved areas affecting Scotland and Wales, but it will then be possible for the Scottish Assembly to pass an Act repealing that, and so on—round and round we go. The supreme authority of Parliament would indeed be affected in that way except in the very short term, and the unity of the United Kingdom would be affected in that respect as in others.

Mr. Dalyell: Is not that one reason why the members of the Scottish National Party are rubbing their hands with glee? That is the chemistry of conflict. The idea that a sovereign Parliament in Westminster on some sensitive subject—by definition it would be sensitive—could overrule the Scottish Assembly would be marvellous political propaganda, given the political atmosphere in Scotland.

Mr. Brittan: I agree entirely. The provisions of the Bill are redolent of conflict. They radically affect the unity of the United Kingdom politically, constitutionally, and legislatively. They affect the supreme authority of Parliament. To insert a provision to the contrary is legislative nonsense and a piece of humbug to which we should not be

a party. For those reasons I propose the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: I shall not use the nasty word "humbug", as did the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), but I must ask Ministers why was it necessary to insert this provision in the first place. It is not only an untruth, it is a silly untruth, because it is palpably and obviously untrue.
I come back to the question of responsibility. The issue of numbers of Scottish M.P.s in Westminster can be confusing because the basic issue is responsibility, not numbers of M.P.s.
I have received no kind of an answer from the Secretary of State. When I am answered by Ministers I do not waste time. I am not wasting time, nor repetitious, but I wish to go back to the crucial issue of representation in the hope that I shall extract an answer from my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
As the Member of Parliament for West Lothian, under the Government's proposals I can vote on the arts in Alnwick in Northumberland but not in Armadale, West Lothian. I can vote on aerodromes at Gatwick and Heathrow but not on Edinburgh Airport. I can vote on buildings in Bath but not in Bathgate in my constituency. I can vote on the burial laws in Blackpool but not on the burial laws in Blackridge in my constituency. I can vote on the betting, bookmaking and gaming laws in Blackburn, Lancashire, but not in Blackburn, West Lothian.
8.15 p.m.
I can vote under these proposals on building controls in Bolton but not in the town of Broxburn, West Lothian. I can vote on bridge maintenance regulations in Bradford but not in Bo'ness. I can vote on land use in Leicester but not in the new town of Livingston, West Lothian. I can vote on the licensing laws in Liverpool but not in Linlithgow.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is giving too many examples. It is tedious repetition.

Mr. Dalyell: I can of course vote on the water supply in Wigan, in your constituency, Mr. Fitch. I can vote on shop hours in Swindon in the constituency of the Whip on the Bench, my right hon.


Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) but not in the village of Stoneyburn in West Lothian.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: If, Mr. Fitch, you are permitting the hon. Gentleman to continue, I would submit to you respectfully that if an hon. Member is repetitious purely for the purpose of wasting time in a tedious manner, that would be out of order. If the repetition is varied and covers all the possible areas of legislation, it is an essential part of the argument of an hon. Member to show by a large number of examples the validity of the case he is making.
With the greatest possible respect to you, Mr. Fitch, I seek to submit that it would not be fair to regard the argument and the manner in which the hon. Gentleman is placing it before the Committee as falling within the ambit of tedious repetition.

The Temporary Chairman: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for trying to guide me. I understand that this is not the first time that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has engaged in repetition, and it becomes tedious.

Mr. Dalyell: I accept the spirit of what you say, Mr. Fitch—

Sir Bernard Braine: Far from being tedious, the hon. Gentleman was illustrating succinctly the errors perpetrated in the Bill. Far from finding what he said tedious repetition and therefore of no great value to the debate, I was finding illumination in what he said.
When English Members later seek to catch your eye, Mr. Fitch, to demonstrate that the Bill has an effect upon our legislative duties here and our responsibilities to our constituents, I hope that we shall not be accused of tedious repetition if we list one after the other the items of interest that concern us. I trust, therefore, that you will permit the hon. Gentleman to develop his argument.

Mr. Tom Ellis: If my hon. Friend is giving a large number of examples, the issue arises—how large is "large"? If "large" includes everything, my hon. Friend could give every example he can think of, which would

keep the Committee sitting for the whole night.

The Temporary Chairman: That is precisely what I had in mind. We should get on with the debate.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has made many speeches in the House of Commons on issues connected with pollution and oil refineries in Essex. I, too, am concerned with pollution in the Firth of Forth and oil refinery problems, not in Canvey Island, but in Grangemouth on the Firth of Forth, where many of my constituents, living in Bo'ness, work. Under these proposals I can vote on many of the hon. Gentleman's problems in Essex, for instance, the fire service problems, he has raised over the years, but not on mine in West Lothian. I wonder for how long that is tolerable.
If you are worried about tedious repetition, Mr. Fitch, I am never repetitious when I get an answer from a Minister. The fact is that the Secretary of State for Scotland has made no attempt to reply. I do not blame him too much for that, he may not have thought it was time to do so. But until we get an answer to the question of representation, we shall go on and on repeating it, and it will become tedious. It is critical to the entire Bill.
At an early stage someone on the Front Bench must give an answer to the question of how 71 Scots, who are not responsible in Scotland for many delicate issues of politics, can influence, perhaps decisively, those very same issues in England.
It is not an answer to say that Northern Ireland has always done it because if the Welsh and Scots do it in far greater numbers, it becomes qualitatively different.
Besides, I have recollections. In 1964, 1965 and 1966 when my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) was on the Front Bench, time and again he talked about the iniquities of Irish Members having an influence at a time when there was a waifer-thin majority of Labour Members. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) remembers that just as well as I do.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my hon. Friend recall that during those years


Northern Ireland questions could not be raised in the House? Northern Ireland Members were here, but we could not discuss Northern Ireland matters, so what right had they to come here and discuss matters relating to England, Wales and Scotland? It has not been stated clearly in the Bill, but that sort of situation might arise for Members from Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Dalyell: This is all very difficult. I am slightly fed up with the Minister of State's mutterings on the Front Bench. I would remind him that although there are skeletons in my cupboard, there are also skeletons in his. I quote from The Scotsman of 19th August 1974 which reported a powerful speech of his.
Mr. John Smith, MP for North Lanark, claimed that members of the party who were pressing for devolution to a Scottish Government without the loss of the office of Secretary of State and a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster were being dishonest.
"Dishonest" is the word he used—that is powerful stuff. The article goes on:
A priority for the party was to retain the Secretary of State and the 71 MPs, but he expressed doubts about how this could be achieved if there was a Scottish Government. The work of the Secretary of State would be taken away from him and given to other Ministers.
None of us has records entirely clean on this matter. We did not foresee in 1974 as many things as we perhaps should have foreseen.
The question of representation without responsibility has now arisen in 1977, and someone somewhere must face up to it. It will not do for the Prime Minister to come along and say, as he did on Second Reading, that this is all due to a steady development and some kind of natural, predetermined flow of history. It is nothing of the kind. Someone somewhere must tell us where the line is to be drawn and where the question of representation of 71 Scots, without responsibility, fits in.
How do the Government get around the question of the presence of 71 Scots influencing English issues for which, literally, we have no responsibility whatsoever, issues for which neither English nor Scottish Westminster MPs have responsibility in Scotland?

Mr. Timothy Raison: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has made some extremely pertinent points, and I shall come back to them.
The first point I wish to put to the Minister is to ask for an explanation of the purport of Clause 1. What do these words mean? Are they descriptive, prescriptive or meaningless? It would help if we could have a definition from the Minister as to what exactly the clause is about.
Secondly, how does this provision affect the unity of the United Kingdom and the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for the whole country? My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) dealt with this very effectively. It has become more and more apparent that the Bill will have an effect on other parts of the United Kingdom outside Wales and Scotland. Furthermore, it has become more and more apparent that the effect often will be adverse, and where it is adverse it is likely to damage the unity of the United Kingdom.
Inescapably the unity of the United Kingdom depends on mutual trust and a fairness between the different parts of the country, and many people feel that this scheme for devolution will make fairness between the parts of the United Kingdom more difficult to achieve. The mere fact that the Bill does not alter the Act of Union does not mean that it does not affect that Union. It does. In particular, in affecting other parts of the United Kingdom besides Scotland and Wales, it has implications for the kind of tacit bargain on which, in the last resort, the United Kingdom rests.
It is crucial—and I regret that the Chair was not able to call an amendment put forward by one of the Scottish National Party Members—that we should consider the question of representation. It is absolutely clear that this scheme will have a major impact on the House of Commons. The point has been made repeatedly by hon. Members on both sides, and I believe that it is beginning to penetrate to the public outside. The fact is that Scottish Members will vote on and debate English, Welsh and Northern Ireland internal matters, but the opposite will not apply. While there is no change in the representation


or the powers of hon. Members, there is bound to be damage to the bonds on which confidence in the United Kingdom must rest.
The really shameful thing is the way in which Ministers keep quiet about this. The issue has been raised in a number of speeches in the past few weeks, and to the best of my knowledge no Minister has attempted to answer it. The reason for this is that the Labour Party likes to think that it will normally get a high proportion of the 71 Scottish Members, and it is not going to jeopardise that. This is a political truth. If the Minister fails to answer this point tonight, he will become a public disgrace. I hope that in this debate—the first opportunity we have had in Committee to look at this issue—he will take a lot of trouble to go into this matter.
The second way in which the Bill affects the totality of the Union has been referred to on a number of occasions—that is, the affect on the economic management of the United Kingdom as a whole. We have had quite a lot of discussion about the block grant and the unique opportunities that it presents for creating friction. As I said in an earlier debate, this is a question not only of the block grant but of the whole attempt to separate economic and social policy. The whole time it will lead to friction, and friction in turn will have a thoroughly adverse effect on the unity of the United Kingdom.
At the same time, the scheme will make it harder for the Government to manage the economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby also made this point. The Government will lose control of the balance within the building programme. They will lose control of most of housing policy and of education policy. These are the instruments by which, for better or for worse, the Treasury has long sought to manage the nation's economy through the ups and downs that we have faced.
8.30 p.m.
I come then to Clause 55, which deals with pay policy. This subject has not yet loomed very large in our debates, but it has a great bearing on our argument this evening. The clause states:
In exercising their respective powers a member of the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly shall have regard to such considerations of national pay policy as may

be specifically brought to his or its attention by a Minister of the Crown.
In other words, this is an attempt to ensure that the central Government and the Treasury are able to keep some kind of control over pay policy as it applies to Scotland and Wales.
I hope that the Minister can tell us what is meant by "have regard to". What is the force of the phrase? I appreciate that it appears in a great many existing statutes, but I do not believe that it has any binding force. It is merely a request to the people who will run Scotland and Wales under the scheme to be decent enough to consider what the Government are trying to do in terms of pay policy.
Therefore, I ask the Minister for a categorical answer. Does that expression amount to anything more than a kind of request, or does it have compelling force? If the Minister cannot answer that, I would have liked him to send for the Attorney-General to give us an answer. However, I feel that the Attorney-General has other things on his plate at the moment, and, anyway, we might not listen very carefully to him. This point about an incomes policy is an extremely important illustration of the kind of problems we should be debating this evening.
Let me be more definite. Suppose that the Scottish Assembly or the Executive wished to pay local government workers in Scotland, or its own staff who man the Assembly, or even its own Members, more than the going rate under the incomes policy current at the time. What could the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Exchequer do about that? It appears to me that what they could do would be to ask the Executive whether it would mind having regard to the pay policy and to ask it to try to do in Scotland what Westminster was doing by statute, because the public sector had a statutory pay policy operating in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Therefore, what would happen? As far as I can see, the Executive would say "We will think about it and see whether we are prepared to do it." If I am wrong, the Minister will no doubt correct me. This is an important instance of the way in which the Bill will inescapably produce friction among the component elements of the United Kingdom.
What will happen if the Scottish Executive pays people more than the going rate? Scottish industry will follow suit because, if local government workers are getting paid more, naturally those who work in industry will want more as well. This will help to lead to the breakdown of the Government's economic policy. It will arouse great resentment in England if Scottish people are seen to be paid more than the English can be paid. I hope that the Minister will face up to this point and bear in mind the strains that this whole policy will impose.
Let me turn to a different point and refer to the speech by the hon. Member for West Lothian. He very effectively made the argument that he would be allowed to vote about education in my constituency but that I would not be allowed to vote about education in his. This is a fundamental matter which must be faced. Clause 1 says that the Bill shall not affect the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or for any part of it. That is fine; I like that sentiment. To me it seems admirable. But what in reality would the Scots think about that. since the truth about the Bill is that legally this Parliament can continue to legislate for anything that happens in Scotland? The United Kingdom Government in London can continue, after the Bill passes into law, to operate health, housing and education services in Scotland.
There is nothing in the Bill that would take away from this Parliament the power to legislate for Scotland or take from the United Kingdom Government the power to operate in Scotland. If there is any such provision, I hope that the Minister will point it out to me. In this respect, if I may be pedantic about it, the hon. Member for West Lothian was wrong. He was right if the Government's intentions are to be put into effect. That would bring about the situation that he described so graphically. He was wrong, however, if he was referring to the law of the land as it will stand if the Bill is passed.

Mr. Dalyell: I have asked on several occasions that a Law Officer should be present. I see that the Lord Advocate has done us the courtesy of attending and perhaps he can clear up this point at a convenient moment.

Mr. Raison: I hope so. I do not claim to be a constitutionalist, but this scheme is not a sort of delegation. It does not say that certain powers will be handed over to the Assembly and the Executive and that they will operate those powers but that we can claw them back if we wish. It creates a concurrent power. It says that the Assembly and the Executive in Scotland may legislate and administer in Scotland. But at the same time the United Kingdom Parliament may continue to legislate also, if it were so minded, it could continue to administer in Scotland. There is nothing in the Bill that takes that power away from Parliament.
I hope that hon. Members who are Scottish or Welsh nationalists are aware that they are supporting a measure which leaves with this Parliament the power to legislate in Scotland and Wales. That is important.
Of course, the Government hope that there will be a convention that we will not legislate for Scotland in this Parliament. I accept that the Welsh case is different. I think that I made a slip there, because the House of Commons will continue to legislate for Wales although the Government hope that Parliament will not legislate for Scotland. I have no doubt that in dealing with this point the Government will refer to the convention that existed in Northern Ireland. I accept the point—the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) will correct me if I am wrong —that in the case of Stormont this Parliament retained the power to legislate about anything in Northern Ireland, but there was a convention that it did not do so. It may be that this would happen in Scotland, but there were special reasons why that convention could be applied in Northern Ireland. Stormont always felt that it had to keep in line with the wishes of Westminster and had to toe the line. It may be harsh, but it is true that Stormont felt that it was on a licence and had to behave. Therefore, opportunities for friction between the two were much less than they would undoubtedly be with a Scottish Assembly.
With Stormont there was also a principle of parity. I do not know the true basis of the parity principle, but I understand that it was a convention rather than a legislative requirement. Anything that


applied in the rest of the United Kingdom also applied in Northern Ireland and standards of provision were matched. This led to much Northern Ireland legislation being a repetition of the legislation that emanated from the United Kingdom Parliament. That will not apply in Scotland. The Scots will not want simply to reproduce what is done here and to regurgitate it in the same form. If they did, the whole thing would be a waste of time.

Mr. Ian Grist: The real difference lies in the fact that Northern Ireland wished to remain part of the United Kingdom, whereas the motive force behind the Bill and the Scottish Assembly is the desire of many people for Scotland to break away.

Mr. Raison: There is a good deal in what my hon. Friend says, though there were certain people in Northern Ireland who were not all that keen on remaining in the United Kingdom. How can we be sure that this scheme will work in Scotland as the old Stormont scheme worked in Northern Ireland? How can we be sure that the convention will persist?
There are a number of reasons why the self-denying ordinance—or, rather, the non-ordinance since it is not expressed in any tangible form—should not apply. If the Government continue their shameless approach and get their way, there will be 71 Scottish Members in this place. No doubt many will be happy to sit and gossip in the Tea Room, but the assiduous Members will not be content to sit around and have no impact on matters affecting their country. They will consider that they have not been sent here to talk about whether there should be comprehensive education in Buckinghamshire. They will naturally want to debate matters such as education and health as they affect their constituencies.
I do not believe that 71 Members, some of whom have great energy and ability, would accept such a self-denying non-ordinance with any satisfaction. How are we to stop them from saying that they will legislate for Scotland? They will have been sent here to represent their constituents, and they will say that that is what they are going to do.
Scottish Members who win high places in the Ballots for Private Members' Bills.

will ask why they should not legislate for the good of the country which sent them here. There will be no legal bar to that. There may even be times when a Government will break the convention which the present Government are trying to create but which they do not have the guts to translate into a statutory form.
There are a number of circumstances in which that could happen. Sometimes governments will ask the Assembly, as they asked Stormont, whether it agrees that they should legislate on particular matters. That will present no problem. However, there may be circumstances in which the Government at Westminster will feel it appropriate to legislate for Scotland.
I wonder whether we can say that the self-denying ordinance was altogether beneficial for Northern Ireland. Many would think that one of the tragedies of Northern Ireland was that this Parliament paid too little attention to what went on there. Stormont was allowed to do things which most of us would regret because of the convention which then existed. I am not arguing that we shall see the Northern Ireland tragedy re-created in Scotland, but we have to be realistic and recognise that ugly things can sometimes happen in any part of our country. I do not believe that a convention which says that it is not the job of the central Government in Westminster to intervene when things are going wrong and sour if the matters concerned have been devolved is a convention which stands up to close scrutiny.
The Minister may say that I have been taking extreme examples to reinforce my case, but when we are making constitutional changes it is our duty to try to consider every eventuality rather than sit back complacently and say that everything will work out because everyone will show good faith.
I hope that the Minister will tell us how he thinks the convention will work and whether he believes that it is possible to operate under the sort of self-denying ordinance on which he relies. The Bill is riddled with anomalies and illogicalities and, above all, with the opportunity—indeed, something more serious than that—for friction between the countries of the United Kingdom. That situation would present a grave danger to our country.
8.45 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby was right in what he said about Clause 18, which provides that the Scottish Assembly may repeal or amend United Kingdom legislation. That is an extraordinary power, extending far into the future and not relating only to legislation in existence today. If we pass legislation in future on devolved matters—as I have argued, that will be possible—the Scottish Assembly can amend it.
Can anyone seriously argue that Clause 18 does not derogate from the sovereignty of this Parliament when it specifically says that an inferior body—I use the term pedantically—can change the legislation of a superior body without infringing the latter's sovereignty? That is arrant nonsense and I do not think that the Minister can prove otherwise.
This all adds up to a scheme which is pitifully flawed and full of potential dangers for the United Kingdom. It should be chucked out as soon as possible.

Mr. Tom Ellis: The Committee is in some confusion because of the two sorts of meaning which can be given to the words "unity" and "sovereignty". The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) talked specifically about the political and social meaning of the words. I am not a lawyer, but I should have thought that it was the legal meaning of words in a Bill that we should consider first. The word "unity", particularly since it precedes "of the United Kingdom", must have a legal meaning. Anyone who claims that the phrase is dishonest must give legal examples to substantiate his claim.
Similarly with "sovereignty"; I should have thought that this Parliament, so far as it is and has been sovereign outside the contents of the Bill, could reverse any law passed by an inferior body. Parliament might be reluctant to do so for fear of the result of the next General Election, but that is different from the absolute sovereignty in a legal sense.

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman has naturally assumed that because it appears in a Bill the phrase "unity of the United

Kingdom" must have a legal meaning. I, too, started with that assumption, but I should be grateful if he would tell me what the word "unity" means in law. I know of no meaning for it and that is one of the objections to it.

Mr. Ellis: I am not trying to amend the clause. It is incumbent on those who move amendments to justify them. I am not justifying the Government. I am merely responding, I hope, as an intelligent layman.
But I want to depart from the legal meaning. I should think that in a legal sense the sentence is true and if it is not meaningful, that is not unique in law. The real issue is the political meaning of "unity" and "sovereignty". Hon. Members who have spoken so far have not appreciated the extent to which legislation is now in a much weaker position than it was a hundred years ago. This is quite natural, as the Government intervene more and more in our daily lives. I could give numerous examples of the law attempting to establish a framework in which people should live and work, where the law is trying to do something which it is manifestly not competent to do.
I shall give a simple example from my experience of working in the coal industry. Legislation meticulously laid down specific rules for the support of roofs in mines, but by the mid-1960s the rules were so outmoded by technical changes that about 90 per cent. of the coal mined in this country came from mines operating under exemptions given by the local inspectors of mines, outside the law. That absurd position came about because the law was unable to cope with change.
The law is a static instrument. Hon. Members are mistaken because they regard unity in a static sense. The late Aneurin Bevan spoke of the unity of the graveyard—absolutely static. One of the most dangerous of Victorian concepts was that of permanence, a permanence based on immobility.
It is manifestly absurd to try to frame laws that attempt to put people in their place, saying "This is what you can and cannot do". That is the approach of the old authoritarianism from which the law derived its power but which is now outmoded. Increasingly we seek


to obtain commitment from people, and one of the first requirements for obtaining commitment is to get away from the concept of a central fount of wisdom and authority which decides the best way of governing people. Today people want to govern themselves. There are genuine technical legal problems.
The present set-up is outmoded. I could make many criticisms of the Bill, but the Government are trying to meet changing social and political conditions with a view to maintaining the unity of the Kingdom. When my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) complains that he cannot take this or that decision in his constituency, he is absolutely correct, but does he want to decide everything? Does he, for example, want to decide whether the cemetery in his village should be extended? There are all kinds of decisions which should not be taken by this House. The increasing amount of decision-making at the centre tends to be bad decision-making. To that extent I would welcome moving the decision-making machinery to lower levels.
Edinburgh may still be a long way away from the crofters in the Shetlands, but at least it is a step in the right direction. People who talk of the sovereignty of Parliament have not grasped the fact that the sovereignty of Parliament is nothing like what it was 50 years ago. Parliament is now obliged to take note of what the TUC says and does. It would be absurd if it did not. Clearly, to that extent Parliament is not sovereign in any absolute sense. It is trying to respond to political, social and economic pressures. The basic philosophical idea of what the law can and cannot do needs to be thought through by Conservative Members.

Mr. Ioan Evans: My hon. Friend is not following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who said that in future Scottish and Welsh Members in this Parliament would be taking part in decisions that affected English Members, but not in matters relating to Wales and Scotland.

Mr. Ellis: I take that point. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian was at least reminded by the Chair that he was being tediously repetitive in draw-

ing attention to the things about which he was unable to make a decision. I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) says: there is a problem, but I do not think that it is insuperable.

Mr. Powell: Tell us the answer.

Mr. Ellis: One answer is to have regions of England.

Sir Bernard Braine: Leave that to us. We do not want them.

Mr. Ellis: I shall leave it to the Englishmen. I was asked by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) what the answer was. I have given an answer off the top of my head.
There are all kinds of examples of the type of establishment we are trying to set up, that are actually working. Possibly we could criticise the Government for trying to do two things in Scotland that are mutually incompatible. They are not giving a devolved structure within the framework of the traditional nation State and nor are they going to whole-hogging federalism. The two things will not work. To that extent it is possible that the Government are falling between two stools.
There is a federal structure in West Germany. It seems to be working. It does not mean that the Bonn Government does not have a certain amount of authority or that there is any lack of unity. While it is right to look at some of the legal niceties, I warn that we shall end up in a difficult position if we approach the Bill without understanding the social and political situation of the latter part of the century.

Mr. Dalyell: I agree that I do not run the cemeteries but under this Bill some of us are responsible for burials. That is a minor point. I had the pleasure of debating the issue of devolution with my hon. Friend at the Left Club at Luxembourg last week. We have also discussed the matter on many other occasions. He has a position that I understand, but it is different from that of the Government Front Bench, which he defends. He believes in a Europe of 50 or 60 regions of which Scotland will be one and Wales another. That is not the view, rightly or wrongly, of the Lord President or myself.

Mr. Ellis: The purpose of my speech has been to try to show that in approaching this issue from an excessively narrow and legalistic point of view hon. Members are bound not to be in a position to take this country into the next century.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should point out to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) that there is a great difference between federalism and the constitutional system put forward in the Bill. It seems that there is a definite risk that the Bill could lead to separation. I do not say that it will or that it is likely to do so. It is a distinct possibility. In the summer, when I asked the Lord President whether he would consider a referendum, he told the House that it was not the way to proceed. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is present tonight and that he has changed his mind. My only regret is that the referendum was not held before our proceedings here began.
One question which should be asked in a referendum is "Do you want a separate or independent Scotland?" It struck me that it would be only fair to ask the Prime Minister to place on record, for the benefit of the people of Scotland, what the consequences of independence might be so that the Scottish electorate might know exactly the nature of its choice. Accordingly, I wrote to the Prime Minister on 30th November asking a number of simple questions about the possible consequence of Scottish independence, to which I felt quite sure he would be able to give me a full and detailed answer.
I asked, for example, whether Scotland would need a separate currency, with customs posts at the border with England. I asked what would be the cost in Scotland of creating a separate army and maybe an air force and fulfilling Scotland's share of our NATO commitments and our commitments in Northern Ireland, what would be the cost in an independent Scotland of purchasing all defence installations there and what would be the cost for Scotland of providing embassies in each foreign country in the world and a legation in Brussels and at the United Nations. I also asked whether there would be increased unemployment in Scotland as a result of the loss of investment from British and international

companies. Would there be any guarantee that Scotland could join the EEC on its own terms, asking for representation of a greatly increased nature?
I asked whether there would be a lower standard of living in Scotland as a result of the loss of grants and subsidies from the United Kingdom Parliament. Would United Kingdom Government Departments and defence contracts go south? Would this cause further job losses? Would Scotland have to maintain its present social services through increased taxation? Would Scotland be responsible for Dounreay atomic power station? What would be the cost of its purchase? Would there be endless negotiations between Scotland and the other parts of the United Kingdom in respect of Scotland's share of the National Debt, and what would that share amount to today? Would there be endless negotiations between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom about the oil revenues which should go to Scotland?
My letter continued:
Which oilfields would fall in the Scottish and English sectors of the North Sea respectively in the event of Scottish independence? Would there be endless negotiations with Orkneys and Shetlands about ceding to them the massive oilfields close to their shores, and would these islands receive independence? Would there be endless negotiations with the rest of the United Kingdom about compensation to be paid by Scotland to other British taxpayers for the millions of pounds spent in creating the British National Oil Coporation?
I am sure the Committee will agree that those were 13 straightforward simple questions. I waited fascinated to see what reply the Prime Minister would give.
9.0 p.m.
On 23rd December I learned that the Prime Minister has delegated this matter to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing), whose reply was the most unusual reply I have ever received from any Scottish Office Minister. The hon. Gentleman failed to answer 12 out of the 13 questions. Apart from saying that there was no question of Scotland joining the EEC on its own terms, he refused to say what the consequences of independence for Scotland might be. In short, he refused to say what any of those consequences might be in the event of separation.
The hon. Gentleman, giving a most interesting reason, said that
there would be no merit in the Government making contingency plans… which is regards as neither likely nor desirable.
Everyone in this Chamber knows that the Government have preserved the independent nuclear deterrent, even though they regard nuclear war as neither likely nor desirable. They do so as part of a contingency plan to deter aggression. We all know that the Government have decided to ensure that nuclear waste at Windscale should not be processed before there has been an inquiry, although they regard radioactive contamination as neither likely nor desirable. However, they have instituted the inquiry as part of a contingency plan to ensure safety.
In the same way the Minister regards Scottish independence as neither likely nor desirable, but he refuses to make any contingency plans or to state what the possible consequences of independence might be. He gives the interesting reason that
those who advocate independence do not speak with one voice as to its form or implications. I think it is for them to say how your questions might be answered.
That is doing precisely what the Unionists do not want. The Minister's refusal to state what the possible consequences of independence might be confers an aura of authority on the Scottish National Party. I suggest that the Bill might lead to independence and that that possibility is increased by the refusal of the Government to spell out to the electorate the possible consequences of independence. When the Government profess to believe in open government it is essential that these possibilities should be spelt out loudly and clearly to the Scottish people.
It is extraordinary that the Government should refuse to answer these questions when a referendum has been promised, unless they are planning to have no question on the issue of separation, about which many of us would feel extremely unhappy.

Mr. W. Benyon: Does my hon. Friend accept that I could have written to the Prime Minister asking almost all those questions, substituting England for Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes. Indeed, the percentage of those who want separation in England is virtually identical to the percentage of those who want separation in Scotland. In both cases it is very small. I hope that it will remain small.
If the Government refuse to state the possible consequences of independence, they might strengthen the possibility of the Bill leading to separation. I support the amendment as a necessary safeguard.

Mr. Buchan: I am in difficulty with the general gist of the amendments because, like the clause, they represent a pious expression of hope about the retention of the unity of the United Kingdom. No amendment, however strong, that insists that it is designed to maintain the unity of the United Kingdom will of itself maintain that unity. The only unity that will be maintained is that of the political world.
On the one hand, it is suggested that inconsistencies will develop and, on the other, that uncertainty is created by the alternatives of separatism and federalism. But the real difficulty is that the status quo option is no longer open. I have never regarded it as a desirable option. I have been in the House 12 years and its function is not comparable with the laws of the Medes and the Persians, or particularly efficient.
The status quo is not an option for another reason. The issue having been raised, it would be infinitely more dangerous now were the Bill not to proceed. That option is not on. The most dangerous possibility of all is if these proposals become bogged down in the House. That would finally prove the ineptitude of Westminster in the minds of large numbers of people in Scotland and Wales.
The pietistic expressions of unity embodied in the amendments neither meet the case in relation to the political world nor in relation to the particular situation that we face. We have reached a time when the option of the status quo is no longer open.
Much has been said in the past hour about the anomalies that will arise. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and others have argued


with force about the ability of Scottish hon. Members to discuss policy for Buckinghamshire or Merseyside when they are not able effectively to discuss education in Scotland or West Lothian. I accept that there are anomalies, but if he examined the present workings of the British constitution no sane man would believe that this thing worked. But we all know that it does. Winston Churchill once said that ours was the worst possible form of government until one examined all the others.
If a group of people had tried to draw up changes at almost any point in our political history they would have said the same as us. The system works because the political will and tradition is there to make it work. That means not that the situation here is perfect but that it works with all the manifest anomalies and incongruities that exist. The basis of the argument is largely not people-centred or based on the requirements of the community, but MP-centred and based on the problems that we face.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: My hon. Friend quoted Churchill saying that ours was the worst form of government but that it worked. Why does he, like the Government, want to change the form of government and create a worse situation than exists at present with no guarantee that it will work?

Mr. Buchan: I thought that the first five minutes of my speech was expressing exactly why I thought that this would have to be changed, when I said that the option of the status quo was not open.

Mr. Heffer: Who says that it is not open? Do the Government say that? Do they know everything?

Mr. Buchan: I said that it was not open and that that was my judgment. I do not speak with the voice of God, whatever my hon. Friend may do. I can give only my own judgment, and in my judgment that option is not open. I thought that I was extremely clear about it.

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman has talked about acceptable anomalies. He said that there were anomalies but that they were acceptable. Will he say

honestly to the Committee what would be his view if it were the case that English Members of Parliament could vote about education, health, housing and so on in his constituency and he could not vote about ours? Would he actually regard that, honestly, as an acceptable anomaly?

Mr. Buchan: I did not say that that situation was acceptable. What I said was that anomalies would exist as anomalies have existed here. They have been overcome because the political will to make the place work has existed. I am not saying that that anomaly in the long run will be acceptable.
I give the hon. Gentleman his argument and say that I cannot see my way forward in this matter. I give him another argument! I cannot see my way forward on the argument developing about the number of Scottish Members, and possibly Welsh Members, in this Parliament. In the long run, we shall have to face up to those two questions. I accept that.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend is making a characteristically candid and interesting speech. However, let him take this anomaly on board. Is it right that he should be able to vote for licensing laws in Liverpool, Walton and in Crosby, but not in his own Linwood or in my Linlithgow?

Mr. Buchan: Again, I thought that I dealt with that in giving another example when I referred to education. Perhaps I may give another example. Let us have a real example. How much more anomalous is it that we have a democratic structure in this country and we elect Members of Parliament and they make decisions in the House of Commons, and then we leave it to the House of Lords to change those decisions for us? Who in planning a democratic structure would have devised that? It has, however, lasted a very long time, and it has worked—although I want to change it. I want to drop it, although it has certainly worked.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Surely if my hon. Friend wants to deal with the machinery of government, the way to do that is to deal with the machinery of this place and of the other place rather than to pass a Bill that has all the dangers of creating tremendous disunity in Britain.

Mr. Buchan: Until the last half of my hon. Friend's interjection I was in agreement with him. It is precisely because I accord a high priority to reforming this place, for which he asks, that I think that the Bill matters, because anything that spreads democracy outwards is useful.
I give the following argument. I do not think that this kind of horizontal devolution is the most important kind of devolution. We know a much more important kind. A vertical devolution of power from the big businesses and monopolies down to workers on the shop floor is a far more radical democratic development than the Bill. However, no one has yet presented me in the House of Commons with the opportunity of achieving that. I hope that the Front Bench will learn from this democratic expression of our constitutional mechanism and will try to introduce some democracy into capitalism, which dominates our political considerations. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) agrees with me on that matter even before he puts it to me. I have raised the question and given the answer.
I do not think that this form of devolution is the most important thing, but it matters. I should like to see devolution taking place downwards and giving more power to ordinary people, the decentralisation of administration as well as decision-making, and the democratic control of that decentralised administration being given to the people whom it directly affects.
9.15 p.m.
There is another argument, although I hesitate to use it because undoubtedly it will be twisted and sullied by SNP Members. I believe that there is such a thing as national identity. My hon. Friend the Member for Walton feels it strongly. He is a good English nationalist, not a chauvinist like SNP Members. He is proud of his Englishness. There is a powerful sense of identity. I believe that the sense of national identity is the solvent that allows us to operate our democratic institutions. It is a sense of belonging that is there whether we like it or not. That is another reason for the option of doing nothing not being open to us.

Mr. Heffer: Just for the record, and in order to get matters absolutely straight, I am an Englishman and not an English nationalist. I abhor nationalism in any form. I believe that in the existing circumstances it can be extremely anti-progressive.

Mr. Buchan: As I applied the term to my hon. Friend, I was using a small "n". If my hon. Friend prefers the word "patriot", that is a word that I should prefer to use. As a qualification I said that my hon. Friend was not a chauvinistic nationalist.
The other option is federalism, which may be said to be the rational and same way of dealing with the situation. That may be said except for one thing that I believe to be insuperable. As Wales does not wish to go so far along the devolution road as Scotland, we should have, basically, a federal structure of two nations, a nation of 5 million people and a culmination of two nations of 50 million people. That would be a ratio of 10:1.
I do not believe in that sort of polarisation. I do not believe that we can have a federal structure that has a one to one system of centres of power, one in Scotland and one in England, and a population differential involving a ratio of 10:1. A federal structure can work when there are a dozen States, or 51 States, as in the United States. It might be possible, although I doubt it, in Czechoslovakia, where there are two basic nations. There is a dictator and there is someone a little further east to help to keep things together, but that is not a comparable situation. I do not believe that a population ratio of 10:1 could be solved by any juggling within a federal structure to produce equity between the two centres of power—for example, giving Scottish members 10 votes for every single vote of the English members.
We have to deal with these difficulties if, as I wish, we are to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom. There are many difficulties in introducing this sort of Bill. I accept that it is shot through with anomalies in the same way as most democratic institutions in the world are shot through with anomalies. However, they are made to work because there is the political will that that should happen. We must assist matters as far as we can by


reducing the anomalies, but I do not believe that it will be possible to achieve perfection. If we ever achieve perfection and I live in a Utopia, I shall be the first to rebel against it.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way as I am aware that I have only just entered the Chamber. I was taking account of his argument about federalism and his defence of it. If he says that the Government's proposal is shot through with inequities—

Mr. Buchan: Anomalies.

Mr. Johnston: Very well, anomalies. We must accept that whatever proposal is produced will be liable to that risk. Why is it that the hon. Gentleman somehow expects a federal proposal, which at the end of the day is always basically a compromise between nationalist-separatist pressures and a desire to remain within a larger community, to be completely clear of anomalies? I do not understand that.

Mr. Buchan: The difference is that that basic concept cannot be balanced in any way whereas the devolution of power, despite a whole number of minor aspects, can be made to work. I believe that the whole concept of the other option, given the imbalance to which I have referred, cannot be made to work. That is the point that I am making.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with a number of alternatives. Would he care to comment on the Yugoslavian model?

Mr. Buchan: That is an interesting model.

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Gentleman said that Yugoslavia was an interesting model. I hope that he will go on to say that it is hardly a satisfactory model for people of British mettle.

Mr. Buchan: It is nothing to do with our being British, but with something else. It is nothing to do with birth, and it is a nonsense to suggest that it is. There is a difficult situation in Yugoslavia because there are many tensions between the States in Yugoslavia. One has there six States and five nations—or perhaps it is six nations and five States. After all,

there are plenty of inadequacies in the democratic structure, but certainly there are large elements of authoritarianism in Yugoslavia. I prefer open democracy, with all its warts.
I want to deal with another interesting phenomenon contained in the list of amendments. Inevitably, it involves the SNP—but even more the ultra-nationalist party, the Scottish Labour Party.
I was interested to see that Amendment No. 311 relating to page 1, line 9, seeks to provide that devolution of powers should not be changed in future. It surprised me that that amendment did not seek to delete the earlier part of the provision. That seems to be accepting the retention of the government of Scotland and Wales as parts of the United Kingdom. I cannot understand why the dog did not bark on that phrase. Has the SNP given up the demand for separation? Of course not. It means that SNP Members wish to achieve separation by stealth.
I hope that they will not advance the old argument that they want to remain part of the United Kingdom because James VI became King of Scotland and England in 1603. That is an historical nonsense, because it was never called the United Kingdom in those days. It was called the Kingdom of Great Britain, France and Ireland. I hope that they are not trying to revert to that point. There are a lot of difficulties in that concept, even though de Gaulle is dead.
What is more interesting is the separatist position of the Scottish Labour Party which is related to Amendment No. 24.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must not refer to Amendment No. 24, which is not selected.

Mr. Buchan: I apologise, Mr. Fitch. I was intending to make only passing reference to that amendment. Members of the Scottish Labour Party wish to insert the words "at present" to ensure that Scotland and Wales shall be part of the United Kingdom only at present. We now have set down clearly for the first time their intention to create an independent Scotland.
Another SLP amendment, No. 363, seeks to insert the concept of the authority of European Community institutions.


I remember the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) campaigning vigorously against the EEC and the Common Market, but he and his colleagues now wish to write into the Bill the authority of the EEC institutions. That is an astonishing turnabout. Scottish Labour Party Members suggest that Scotland should not be separate from the United Kingdom because we shall be in the Common Market. Therefore, they are not taking up a nationalist point of view, but they want a separate Scottish presence in the EEC.
I would respectfully suggest that this is a dishonest group of amendments. One cannot have Scottish representation as a State without first applying for such membership and one cannot apply for such membership until Scotland first becomes an independent State. Therefore, these amendments—even more clearly than some of the curious speeches at its conference last weekend—makes it abundantly clear that the Scottish Labour Party is more "ultra" than the SNP in its separatist position.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Walton, I am a British patriot with regard to the EEC. I do not want to see it extended any more. The amendments are a nonsense and are dishonest in the sense of trying to achieve the argument for independence without first arguing the case for independence. They should therefore be rejected.
Similarly, I would plead with hon. Members opposite that they will not achieve the unity of the United Kingdom by pious expressions of hope. We can do so only by the political will of our people and the development of institutions—however imperfect—according to the will of the people of this country. That is all we can rest on for the future, as has been done in the past.

Mr. Benyon: I listened with certain dry amusement to the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). For several months last Session I served on the same Committee as the hon. Gentleman listening to him telling us, the English Members, how we should reorganise the law on agricultural tenancies in England. If ever there was an example of power without responsibility, that was it. I was not surprised

to hear what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman will remember that I was trying to achieve for England what I personally helped to achieve for Scotland eight years ago. I was trying to extend my benevolent despotism into England.

Mr. Benyon: It is clear from what the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) eloquently said in this debate, as well as the previous one, that when one gets people in this position one is operating in a situation of power without responsibility—to quote Earl Baldwin,
The prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages ".
We shall have a good example of political harlotry when the Bill goes through Parliament.
The last debate concerned Orkney and Shetland. I mean no disrespect to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) when I say that he represents 26,000 constituents in this House. I represent nearly 100,000 constituents. That is the scandalous nature of the point we are discussing in these amendments.
I shall quote Clause 1 to the Minister and ask him a simple direct question. The clause states:
The following provisions of this Act… do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it.
Let us take a specific case. One of the devolved subjects will be housing. Will the Minister tell me whether, if the Bill becomes an Act, this Parliament at Westminster will legislate for housing in Scotland? None of us believes that that could possibly be true. Therefore, what does the clause mean?
I and many of my constituents find it completely scandalous and unacceptable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) has said, that Members for Scottish constituencies should be able to come here and vote in respect of our education, health and housing whereas we shall have no say at all concerning those subjects in Scotland.
9.30 p.m.
We are fully aware of the political implications. Only once since the war


has there been a Socialist majority in England. We do not know what the future holds, but surely the Secretary of State can understand the fury and anger that would be aroused if, for the sake of argument, we had a Socialist or Scottish National Scotland and a Conservative England and English aspirations were thwarted by Scotland.
Hon. Members who took part in the previous debate will have heard the term "self-determination" used. It is redolent of the 1930s. I half expected the word to be followed by talk of plebiscites, not referenda. If it is right for Scotland to have self-determination, it is right for England to have it. If it is wrong for Scotland to have self-determination, it is equally wrong for England to have it. If it is right for Scotland to vote in a referendum, it is equally right for England to vote in a referendum on the future of the United Kingdom.
What will affect the unity of the United Kingdom is money, not matters of policy or ethnic questions. Money is always the stumbling block. The new Assembly will latch on to the financial provision. That is what will affect unity. People argue about policy and differ on it, but money is a different matter. The basic platform of all movements for separation, past and present, is economic and financial, not political.
As the hon. Member for West Lothian said, what has to be considered is representation. If Amendment No. 311, in the name of the Scottish National Party, were passed, the hon. Gentleman's position if he were re-elected under those arrangements would be worse than it is under the Bill. He would be here simply to deal with Imperial questions. That he and his colleagues would find that conducive to the sort of life they have been leading up to now is highly unlikely.
There is only one solution, which is to start again. There is still time for all the parties involved to sit down together to try to reach agreement on a policy that will meet the aspirations of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England as a whole. I believe that that is possible. That is why I hope that the Bill will not pass into the light of day. Let us start the process again and reach a sensible solution.

Mr. William Hamilton: I am a simple fellow and I want to ask the Government a simple question which can be answered in one word. What difference would it make to the Bill if the clause were left out? May I have an answer? There must be a simple answer. Would it make any difference to the Bill if the clause were omitted?

Minister of State, Privy Council Office(Mr. John Smith): Is my hon. Friend saying that if I answer his point now, he will not continue to speak?

Mr. Hamilton: I do not give guarantees like that. I have tried, as I have read this legislation, to get rid of some of the verbiage. In this clause we have no more than a declaration of intent. One would not mind that so much if it had some passing acquaintance with the truth. It does not even have that merit—it is blatantly untruthful.
My philosopher Friend the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) philosophised about the unity of the United Kingdom, and he presumed that it was a legal concept, but did not explain what he meant by that. The Government must explain, yet I see that we have no legal representative on the Front Bench. However, judging by recent events we should not be much better off if we had.
What exactly do the Government mean in this regard? Is there any precedent for a declaration of intent in the Preamble of a Bill such as this? I cannot think that it would have the force of law—it is just what the Government hope will happen.
Whom are they trying to placate or deceive by putting in this clause? What do we mean in this House by the unity of the United Kingdom? I think we mean, in part, that this House is sovereign for legislation for what is generally recognised as the United Kingdom. All the different parts of the United Kingdom —the regions—come within the legislative authority of this House, and that is what I mean by unity.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Would not my hon. Friend agree that a suitable definition of "unity" is that citizens of the United Kingdom simply have a loyalty to the Crown?

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend can count me out of that. Later I shall be


suggesting an additional power for the Scottish Assembly to declare Scotland a republic, and I shall be interested to see the response I get to that. If we are expanding democracy, downwards, upwards, outwards and inwards, and all over the place, it is possible that the Scots might have a different view of certain of our institutions.
They are not to have a second Chamber under this Bill. Why not? The Scots have not been consulted. This might be put as a question in the referendum. In fact, the referendum question could be posed in the terms of Clause 1 in an interrogatory form—"Do you think that the Government's proposals will affect the unity of the United Kingdom?" We shall see what the Scots have to say about that. I know that the Scottish National Party accepts that. The second question could be "Do you think these proposals will affect the supreme authority of Parliament?" The answer to each of these questions is undeniably "Yes"
Why do the Government insist in putting untruths on the statute book in this way? In my constituency party we have

been debating the implications of the implementation of these provisions.
In Fife, Central there will be not one but three Members of Parliament at least. I go to my monthly meeting regularly. In future the question will arise whether we should have a rota system for those meetings. Will one Member go one month, another the second, with the third attending the month after? Or will all three of us go each month?
Will each of us have different fields of responsibility? My position in relation to my constituency and my electorate as well as to this House will be different from what it is now. There will be friction between us and that will harm the unity of the United Kingdom [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Of course it will.
Those two Members sitting in the Assembly in Scotland will be saying "We want more money from you at Westminster. What are you going to do about it when you get to Westminster, Willie Hamilton?" There will be friction where none has existed before, and for the Government to write into the Bill that there will be none is a nonsense.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I wonder whether Alan McClure has never asked my hon. Friend whether he will make representations to the Westminster Government for more money. My understanding is that this is a common practice of regional and district councils.

Mr. Hamilton: Of course he has, but under these proposals he will be asking not only me, but all members of the Assembly. He will be asking threefold and therefore the friction will be threefold. There can be no doubt that this friction is likely to develop because of these measures. Clause 1 makes an absolute nonsense and is an insult to the intelligence of hon. Members.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The hon. Gentleman has not addressed his mind to the proper question here. He asked what he could do if representations were made to him. The answer is that the sovereignty still lies here because the next Parliament could reverse the whole package if it wanted to, and that is the real test of sovereignty.

Mr. Hamilton: I am saying only that we are putting in increased possibilities of friction. That is what most of this debate has been about. If there is another legislative Assembly, the area of conflict is bound to be extended. We saw the example of Stormont and the Northern Ireland Members here. That example has been cited many times. I can remember when there was a Bill before the Scottish Grand Committee on housing rents in Scotland. One or two Members from Northern Ireland were conscripted—I believe that that is the correct word to use—on to our Committee. They were voting on the subject of increased rents for Scottish housing.

Mr. Buchan: I think that I am correct in saying that any vote taken at the end of the Scottish Grand Committee is not an effective vote on the Bill. The effective vote on the Bill remains with this House.

Mr. Hamilton: Yes, and those Northern Ireland Members could still vote on it here. My point is that those Northern Ireland Members were looked upon with great hostility by the Labour Party. We found it indefensible that they should be

voting on that kind of thing while we could not ask even a Question here about housing policy in Northern Ireland. That situation will be repeated exactly with the Scottish Members here.
The more powers that are given to the Assemblies in Scotland and Wales, the less defensible will it become for 71 Scottish Members and 36 Welsh Members to sit here. They will be voting and talking on legislation and policies affecting England when the English Members will be unable to interfere in matters concerning Scotland and Wales.
9.45 p.m.
I would find it impossible to defend the continued existence of 71 Scottish hon. Members in this Parliament if the powers in the Bill were granted to a Scottish Assembly. The Government envisage that the measures will not affect the unity of the United Kingdom. But it will inevitably upset the balance in the Westminster Parliament and create increased friction, not only between the Assemblies, but between representatives in the Assemblies and within parties.
The matter has been discussed with interest in my constituency and another possibility considered. What would happen if a General Election almost coincided with elections for the Assemblies and party manifestos had to be published? There would have to be a party manifesto for Scotland and another for England. In my constituency there would be two members in the Assembly and one Member in Westminster. The Labour Party at Transport House might take a different view about rents or housing subsidies in England from that in Scotland. I should have to keep off platforms in Scotland or say "You belong to a different party from me." Many people in the Labour Party find that depressing. Not only would divisions be created in the House, but the party would be divided, and that would be a sad day for politics.
The Tory Party would also be divided. I hear an hon. Member on this side say that we are divided now, but we have all contributed to that. We are creating difficult circumstances and making it hard for hon. Members to present a common front because policies could be so different. The problems in Scotland


are different from those in England. To divide working people because of a line on a map is completely indefensible. I suspect that the Leader of the House knows that, which is why he is a reluctant advocate of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) mentioned Clause 18. Subsection (2) says:
A Scottish Assembly Act may amend or repeal a provision made by or under an Act of Parliament.
That appears to make the Scottish Assembly sovereign to Parliament. If Parliament saw that happening and did not want it to happen, Parliament could repeal the repeal. So there would be a vicious circle of friction created by battle on the legislative field between the elected Assembly and the sovereign Parliament here.
I cannot see any sense in that provision and unless the Government can give an assurance about what it means, it would be better left out altogether.

Mr. Powell: This is a remarkable clause to which the amendment has been moved. The hon. Member for Renfrew-shire, West (Mr. Buchan) described it generously as a pious expression of hope, but the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) was nearer the mark when he said that it was a statement of an untruth. It is a clause which has a considerable history. It is a sad history, but it is instructive and it is perhaps worth a few minutes of the time of the Committee to take a backward glance.
That history happens to be related to Ireland, but it is only in Ireland that this country has hitherto attempted the experiment of legislative devolution within the United Kingdom. It is little surprise, therefore, that the example should be taken thence and that there should already have been so many references in our debates to the experience of the House in attempting to legislate for a form of devolved government in Northern Ireland.
The Home Rule Act, which was passed in 1914 under the Parliament Act 1911, carried in its forefront a bold statement which was the vigorous forefather of the strange and puny infant which is Clause 1 of this Bill. The 1914 Act said:

Notwithstanding the establishment of the Irish Parliament or anything contained in this Act, the supreme power and authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters, and things in Ireland and every part thereof.
What Imperial confidence breathed in those assured words, couched though they were in the future tense and not in the indicative tense of Clause 1. But it was not to be. Six years, one world war and a civil war—the less vicious part of a civil war—later, this House of Commons passed the Government of Ireland Act 1920, described as
An Act to provide for the better Government of Ireland.
That Act almost repeated the same clause, but there were differences. Instead of being the first clause, it was Clause 75—the last clause.
There was another change, too. The reference to:
the supreme power and authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom
had had two words omitted and became
the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom".
This House had discovered that, though it might assert its authority to legislate and tell itself that it had the power to pass laws and make assertions, it did not have the power necessarily to carry them out unless the will of those to whom the laws were to be applied was present.
The 1920 Act divided the Home Rule Act into two and set up two Parliaments, so that it was notwithstanding the setting up of two Parliaments, as well as a hypothetical Parliament for the whole of Ireland, that the assertion was repeated in the 1920 Act. The southern three-quarters never came into existence; not merely the power, but the authority of this House did not extend so far. Reluctantly for the people of Northern Ireland, the northern quarter did come into force, and Section 75 of the 1920 Act became part of what we called the Stormont constitution.
Through all its years it was true, as Parliament had asserted, that this House had supreme authority
unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters, and things in Northern Ireland and every part thereof.


But what happened in those 50 years? This House, glad to wash its hands of a troublous Province and also, no doubt, moved by the consideration that, having devolved authority, it should interfere as little as possible, established the convention that this House would not concern itself with administration, ask questions or raise debates, but rather abstained from the legislation which was undoubtedly within its competence upon a wide range of matters which had been placed within the power of the Northern Ireland Government.
Thus, for the best part of 50 years this House, which had the supreme authority and which, because it had the supreme authority, must therefore have had the supreme responsibility—for if one possesses authority, one must be responsible for what happens when one exerts one's authority and when one does not exert it—enjoyed—not quite the old slogan but—the assertion of authority without responsibility. Two generations of parliamentarians passed through this House ignorant, because they were not required to know, of the affairs of a Province for which this House was supremely responsible, until the time came when this House did exert its supreme authority by abolishing the 1920 Act and wiping out of existence the Stormont constitution.
There is a lesson here for this House in respect to this Bill. The lesson is that one cannot really have authority if one does not exercise it and exercise it continuously. The mere incursion of legislative authority once every 10, 15, 20 or 50 years into a certain situation is not the exercise of parliamentary responsibility: it is almost an act of tyranny, it is an arbitrary act.
The manner in which this House exercises its authority and responsibility for the United Kingdom is that it keeps continuous watch "over all persons, matters and things" within the same. It calls Ministers to account daily upon the different Departments of Government. In the Committees of this House it examines what is happening in all the spheres of life. So of course, when it comes to exercise its legislative power, it does so from that position of continuous contact and knowledge which alone creates the texture of responsibility.
There is—I am sure that this will go particularly to the heart of the Lord President—a mirror image in this country's situation in respect of European Economic Community. Her Majesty's Government, particularly the previous Government, rejoiced to assert that, since this House can always repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, therefore this House has not lost its sovereignty and everything remains as it was before.
But in fact we know that, day by day, every day that we do not repeal or amend the 1972 Act, matters are dealt with outside the control of this House—indeed, outside the knowledge of this House—so that the assertion of sovereignty becomes so empty that it could eventually be given effect only by what would in reality be a revolutionary act.
The Lord President more than any other right hon. or hon. Member knows perfectly well in that context the truth of my statement that there can be no parliamentary sovereignty without the intense, continuous and authoritative application of this House to the matters over which sovereignty is to be exercised. There is no such thing as occasional sovereignty exercised in practice only between long intervals of purely theoretical, unexercised sovereignty.
Now apply that to this Bill. What we can—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That the Scotland and Wales Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Ashton.]

SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Powell: Apply that principle to the Bill. If the Bill is passed, what will happen will be that this House will refrain from concerning itself with those matters that are devolved in their separate ways to Scotland and to Wales. They are not matters that it will permit itself


to debate. They are not matters about which we shall find we can ask Questions. We shall be told that responsibility for answering an hon. Member's Question lies elsewhere. And so, year after year, there will evolve legislation and administration in the case of Scotland, and administration in the case of Wales, which will gradually grow away—otherwise, what is the point of what we are doing?—from law and administration in the rest of the United Kingdom. In the end, the point will come when it is impracticable, and when everyone will see that it is impracticable, to exercise that undoubted
supreme authority of Parliament to make laws…for any part
of the United Kingdom. The reality of that authority will, of the necessity of what we are doing, have been so eroded from within that this will be a mere hollow statement of something that is contradictory to the very intentions and implications of the Bill.
In the debate last night, the Lord President referred to the 'exception which proves the rule', as my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) called it, of the Stormont Parliament. With somewhat the triumph of a successful conjurer who knows that there are some in the audience who know the trick, but, he hopes, not too many—with such a gesture, the Lord President declared that here was an example of what hon. Members were saying would be impossible under the Bill—namely, to have Members from Scotland and Wales coming to this House in undiminished strength after the Bill was passed, and yet devolved government and devolved legislation being carried on perfectly happily in those countries.
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly—but it had better be put on record again—what are the reasons why that is the exception that proves the rule, an exception which, once the anomaly—lived with more or less happily, more or less unhappily, for some 50 years—has been terminated, cannot be re-created deliberately in the face of its anomalous nature, any more than we, with our eyes open, can do the anomalous thing that we are being invited to do in the Bill.
The reasons are twofold. The first is that devolution was not, as the Prime Minister said was the case in this Bill,

devolution to a nation. It was devolution to a Province of the United Kingdom, the majority of whose inhabitants were determined on one thing more than anything else, in preference to anything else, namely, that they would remain part of the United Kingdom. In pursuance of that they would not, even in the smallest matters if they could avoid it, diverge from the law, the taxes and practices of the rest of the United Kingdom. This is a background not merely different from but at the opposite extreme to the reasons why devolution is taking place to the so-called or real—we shall see—nations of Wales and Scotland.
The other reason—in a sense the hon. Member for Fife, Central touched on it —is that the numbers were so small that until recently there was never a case when major matters, the life and death of the Government, were decided by the majority of Members returned from Northern Ireland. It was a net addition of merely six or eight to the size of the Conservative majority or minority in the House and, therefore, as Members of a House not concerning itself with the affairs of a Province of the United Kingdom, they were put up with for as long as that situation lasted. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he can draw no comfort or derive no sustenance for his Bill—very much the reverse—from the exception that proved the rule—Northern Ireland.

Mr. Dalyell: Would it help the right hon. Gentleman's case if I told him that the Chairman of the Scottish National Party has made it clear in the past month on several different occasions that he and his colleagues will strive as hard as they can to alter the Scotland and Wales Act —if it becomes an Act—and if they are represented in an Assembly?

Mr. Powell: I would be surprised if it were not so, for that is in the nature of the logic—logic which I thought the Prime Minister accepted in the terminology in which he introduced the Second Reading of the Bill.
I return to the wording of this clause. When we do so after the historical examination of its antecedents, it seems even more remarkable than it appeared at first glance. First there is the present tense, the assertion of a fact. That is rather reminiscent of the man who tells


one that he is honest, from which one can be reasonably sure that it is necessary to keep a tight hold upon one's purse. Then there is the fact that the supreme authority of Parliament is limited in this clause. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Leon Brittan) in opening the debate did not refer to this. It is remarkable that, whereas in the antecedent examples the reference had been to the authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom over all "persons, matters, and things", the only sort of authority of Parliament which is unaffected in the Clause is the supreme authority of Parliament "to make laws".
Someone has been thinking. Someone has been thinking to himself "But Parliament will lose its supreme authority over 'persons, matters, and things' in Scotland and Wales except when it chooses to intervene with its legislative sledge-hammer." There is a conscious or unconscious recognition in the new terminology that the House of Commons will relinquish and lose that continuous surveillance over "persons, matters, and things" which is the indispensable basis of our legislative activity, our representation of our constituents and our control of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am following what the right hon. Gentleman is saying with interest and a good deal of respect. What he has not made clear so far is whether he is in favour of the re-establishment of the Stormont Government. It would assist us in Wales and Scotland if he made his position clear.

Mr. Powell: I thought I made it clear that I believe it to be impracticable to create a legislative Assembly in part of the kingdom which is also to be represented in the House of Commons. I have made no secret of that fact at any time. If the conundrum can be solved for other parts of the United Kingdom, my hon. Friends and I will, as we do in all other respects, claim in this respect also to be treated on a par with the rest. But, as a Member of this Parliament and as a legislator, I must point out that there is an inherent contradiction in this legislation to which there is no solution except within the framework of a federal State.
That statement was openly and publicly made in the programme of the United Ulster Unionist coalition, as a Member of which I sit in the House of Commons. Therefore, it is no new idea to right hon. and hon. Members who are sent here from Northern Ireland.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: indicated dissent.

Mr. Powell: It is no use the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) shaking his head. Even the shaking of his head will not succeed in bridging the unbridgeable gap between devolved legislative power and representation by legislators in the House of Commons.
I was about to refer to the third peculiarity in the clause—its reference to
the unity of the United Kingdom".
I am at one with the hon. Member for Fife, Central that there is only one useful meaning for us of
the unity of the United Kingdom".
It is the unity which follows from the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament. It is the unity of those "persons, matters, and things" which are contained within the authority of this Parliament. It is the authority of this Parliament which establishes the unity of the United Kingdom.
The clause is an admission of guilt. If the Government believed that the Bill did not affect the supreme authority of Parliament, they would have had no need to refer to
the unity of the United Kingdom
being unaffected by the Bill.
We need hardly go beyond Clause 1. There is a sense in which all subsequent debate is useless. The clause by its wording, by its assertion of something which those who drew it knew was contrary to the facts about the Bill, is the admission of the unworkability and inadmissibility of the whole proposed legislation.

Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred to the situation in Ireland and the break-up of Ireland from the United Kingdom.
I should like to address myself again, as I do in these debates, to the discussions which took place in the Labour movement on this matter. The Labour movement showed a great deal of sympathy and support for Irish nationalism,


but it was not always thus. In fact, at the time of the 1916 rising there was a strong feeling, even among the Southern Irish, that James Connolly and the Transport and General Workers' Union had taken a wrong turn. There was another view. I wish that some of my hon. Friends knew a little more about the history of our movement.

Mr. Buchan: Some do.

Mr. Heffer: I agree that some do, but, unfortunately, too many do not. They would know that there was not universal agreement in the Labour movement in Ireland about supporting the nationalist struggle. Some people looked at the situation differently. I refer to this because last night my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made a most amazing speech in which he said that Stormont had lasted for 50 years. I had the impression that he almost suggested that this was an example of the value of devolution. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend intended to convey that impression but that is how his speech came across.
10.15 p.m.
I cannot remember the Labour movement being happy about Stormont at any time. We were never enthusiastic about it. Hon. Members on this side sighed with relief when Stormont was abolished, not by this Government but by a Conservative Government. There was a general sigh of relief that the situation was at last being ended, and hope that a new situation might arise and that new circumstances might lead to new developments.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I certainy did not intend to suggest that I commended what happened in Stormont. I said that it was impossible for those who knew what had happened to say that a devolved, subordinate operation could not continue when it had existed for 50 years. I am not defending what happened in Stormont. Conditions there were different. Nonetheless, I believe that my argument disposes of what is said by some hon. Members who declare that such an operation is impossible.

Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend knows as well as I that it was precisely because of the character of Stormont that we ultimately achieved the back-up. People in Northern Ireland felt that they were deprived, and they were deprived. There were two types of citizen. We do not want that situation to develop in any other part of the United Kingdom—or do we? I do not and I am sure that other hon. Members do not want that to develop.
When I went to the Scottish Labour Party Conference I talked to delegates who passed, without enthusiasm, a resolution in support of devolution. I recall what happened in the House on the night of the Second Reading. Who cheered and waved their Order Papers? Only hon. Members on one Bench did that—the Scottish and Welsh Nationals. Why did they cheer? Because the Scottish Nationals—and they have never made any secret of it—regard this Bill as a first step to separation, to the break-up of the United Kingdom and to independence. Hon. Members on those Benches are absolutely clear in what they want.
How can we suggest for one moment that the proposals will not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament? One has only to put that question in the context of the enthusiasm among Scottish and Welsh nationalists to know that that is not true.

Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friend has got it wrong. The reason why Members of the SNP support the devolution Bill is that they can do no other. They cannot present themselves in Scotland if they do not support a devolution Bill. They want the easiest step towards separation, and they want the Bill to become bogged down in the House to prove the final ineptitude of Westminster. The Bill is an effort to stop that.

Mr. Heffer: I cannot speak for the SNP and say whether the SNP is supporting the Bill because it can do no other. However, I have the feeling that the reality is that that is what many of my hon. Friends are saying. They are saying —this is the worst possible reason for supporting a Bill of this kind—that if we do not pass the Bill, within 10 or 15 years' time the Scottish nationalists will take over and there will be independence. They are saying, in other words, that we


should do it because we see no alternative.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Why are you doing it?

Mr. Haffer: If I remember rightly, the former Leader of the Opposition also had something to do with this question.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: It is your Bill.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the fact that if Labour had been in Opposition now and his party had been in Government with the same Leader, and possibly even with its present Leader, a similar Bill may well have come forward, unfortunately for the same reasons. It is possible that that would have happened, and I think that it is probable. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should not try to make this a party issue, because it is not a party issue. This is a matter on which hon. Members feel deeply, irrespective of the party to which they belong. We cannot solve this problem on party lines.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I apologise for making a contribution from a sedentary position. However, the point to which the hon. Gentleman is coming, a very important point, is why the Bill has been presented in the first place. He has already answered that point by saying that it has been presented because of the threat feared by the Labour Party in Scotland from the nationalists. Surely that is the wrong reason of all wrong reasons for presenting the Bill in the first place.

Mr. Heffer: I said that there was no enthusiasm for the Bill in the Labour Party or in the House of Commons—apart from one group of people who clearly see it as a major step.
I am slowly coming to the conclusion that if we are to have genuine devolved government, the only real answer, as the Liberals and others have suggested, is a federal type of devolved government. That would make a certain amount of sense. I do not agree with it because I do not think that we need it. However, there would be some sense in that. There is no sense in reacting to situations all the time. I object to that. We react to situations.
To suggest that the Bill will not bring about disunity is nonsense. I gave a concrete example the other night. The natural region in my area is Deeside and Merseyside. Incidentally, there is an interchange of people there. Workers go from Deeside to Merseyside and from Merseyside to Deeside. They are Welshmen, Liverpudlians, and so on. But we might find that a totally artificial barrier is erected even as a first step under the Bill, and if the nationalists get their way there will be an ultimate step. The whole thing is an absurdity. If we want prosperity in Deeside and Merseyside and to deal with our problems there and our economic difficulties, we can achieve it only by giving assistance to both areas and by both areas working with each other.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Can my hon. Friend point to anything in the Bill which would prevent the relationship he is describing between Merseyside and Deeside from continuing?

Mr. Heffer: Not at this stage. I have made that point. But to suggest that the relationship will continue as at present is, in my opinion, to live in cloud-cuckooland. It will not. There will be progression. The progression will be increasingly based upon the demands of the nationalists towards separation. It is ridiculous to argue that that will not have any effect on the unity of the United Kingdom.
We are so mixed up in our country. I say "our country" meaning the whole of the country. When, for example, the Liverpool City Council appointed its Chief Medical Officer he was not asked from what part of the country do you come?"—

Mr. Hamish Gray: They are all Scottish.

Mr. Heffer: Exactly. He was asked for his qualifications, and, as is so often the case because of the medical school in Edinburgh, he qualified in Scotland. In fact, he is a Scot. But what will happen in future? I have a horrible feeling—I have heard the nationalists make statements about looking after the Scots—that sooner or later the people in England, for totally wrong reasons, will begin to use the same argument in reverse.


That means the splitting up and the destruction of the unity of our people.
I do not want to see that happen. I believe in national identity but that means respect for each other's culture. It does not mean destroying the unity that we have already achieved.
The issue of nationalism and internationalism has always been a difficult problem in the Labour movement. Anyone who has studied the movement will know, for example, of the great arguments that took place about the Austro-Hungarian Empire. People such as Victor Adler strongly opposed the breakup of the empire for perhaps the same reasons that I am arguing. He wanted a Socialist Austro-Hungarian Empire, or rather a Socialist unity. People such as Luxembourg, a Polish Jew in the German Social Democratic Party, opposed all forms of nationalism.
There has always been this argument in the movement. Both approaches are respectable arguments, but 1 have always come down on the side of the Luxembourgians because I believe in the unity of working people in their struggle to create an international Socialist society. I do not believe that the sort of proposals that the Government put forward can help my concept of Socialism, or even the unity of the United Kingdom as it now exists.

10.30 p.m.

Sir Bernard Braine: In their different ways the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) have laid bare the fraud that Clause 1 perpetuates. Indeed, the astonishing feature of the debate has been that no one has spoken from either side of the Chamber in a contrary sense. I shall not repeat their arguments because the night is getting on. There is a case for devolution, however, for a genuine transfer of power and responsibility to the constituent parts of the kingdom, provided—and only provided—that the people, all the people, have the opportunity of saying "Yes", and genuine referenda are held before we put on the statute book a botched-up and ill-thought-out measure of this nature.
Many people believe that we are grossly over-governed. Many think that we are

badly governed, and many would welcome an opportunity for a genuine devolution of power and responsibility so that they can exercise greater control over their own affairs. But that is not what this Bill is about. Moreover, I know of nobody who argues this case, nor do I see the necessity for it.
In the opening words of the Bill there is the assertion that nothing in it affects
the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it".
It is tacitly assumed that the unity of our country is not affected in any way, and so the implications for England and Northern Ireland are totally ignored. But everybody in Parliament, except those who feel themselves on the Government Front Bench and a handful of Nationalists, knows that the unity of our country, and every part of it, will be adversely affected. We are not bent here on a genuine devolution, for which there is at least an academic case but are starting down a road which, if the SNP has its way, and if we are honest about it, must mean separation of an important part of the kingdom from the rest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), who opened the debate with a remarkably clear and succinct speech, said that the unity of the United Kingdom is not a legalistic form of words but a political fact. With respect, it is something more than that. The unity of our country is a concept, an idea enshrined in the hearts of every man and woman.
I warrant that the dead in two world wars did not lay down their lives for Ross and Cromarty, or for Lancashire, or for the valleys of South Wales or even for Canvey Island. They did so for Great Britain—not in a narrow pseudo-patriotic sense, but for a Britain which sums up family and home, memories of the past and hopes for the future, for the localities from which they came and the schools in which they were taught.
If we were to go out into the streets and ask people whether they come from Scotland, Wales or the North or the South of England, basically one would find that they also consider themselves to be British and are proud to be so. It seems to me that this Parliament is increasingly becoming remote from the feelings, aspirations and anxieties of ordinary people, and this


debate has underlined that fact in a most remarkable way.
Even now I suggest that the full implications of what is being perpetrated here are not yet fully understood by the great mass of people outside this House. [HON. MEMBERS:" In this House, too."] I do not pretend to speak for other hon. Members, but I have not had a single letter on this issue from a constituent. When people speak to me about the matter, they are puzzled why Parliament, at a time of grave economic crisis, should be bothering with a measure which, so far as they can gather, will lead not to better government but to more government, not to greater unity but to disunity, not to our country playing a stronger rôle in the affairs of Europe but a weaker one. They sense, too, the possibility of the breakup of this kindgdom. They cannot understand the madness for which the Lord President and his friends are responsible.
It seems that we have put the cart before the horse with a vengeance. Why, even now, have the people of Britain not been asked for their views? Why has the case for this extraordinary measure not been put before the people in the form of a referendum?
The hon. Member for Fife, Central was right to ask what he described as a simple question: "What do the people of the constituent parts of the Kingdom want?"
It may be that in Scotland the vast majority of the people want something in the nature of what is proposed in the Bill. In that case they should have it. With the example of Ireland before us, I would not stand in their way. But no one knows. And what about the wishes of the people in Wales?
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) asked that the people of England should be able to express their views in a referendum. I agree. I would respectfully add that there are probably more Welshmen and Scotsmen living and working in England —not necessarily permanently—than there are in Wales or Scotland. Why should they not have the opportunity to express a view about the future of the kingdom of which they are part?
At least when the decisive step of joining the EEC was taken there had been

a decade-and-a-half of discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of our taking so momentous a step. For a decade after the first application to join the Community had been made by the Macmillan Government there were intensive discussions about the impact upon our Commonwealth relations and trade.
Some of us who had doubts about the wisdom of taking that step took part in those discussions over many years. Business and industry had time to adjust itself. Many firms were hedging their bets. While successive Governments were trying to make up their mind about whether to renew the application to join, firms were establishing branch offices and making marketing arrangements in the countries of the Community because they were not going to be left out of the growth of Europe should we not enter the Community at the end of the day.
Who among the people of this country today really know what this Bill is about? Who in England, Scotland or Wales have really thought about the likely consequences for our economy, trade and the defence and standing of our country in the world?
Since the majority of people are well aware—as successive by-elections prove —that our economy is badly managed and that the reorganisation of local government has left a great deal to be desired—

Several Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Sir Bernard Braine: Of course. Both Governments are responsible. I am not making a partisan speech. I am trying to speak for the ordinary people of England whether they vote Labour, Liberal, Conservative or Scottish National. [Laughter.] I venture to think that there are not many of the latter in England, and I venture to suggest that when the true facts are made known to the people of Scotland there will be fewer there, too.
What guarantee is there that the arrangements envisaged in the Bill—adding as they do new tiers of administration, a new tribe of politicians, a host of new bureaucrats—will add anything to the prosperity, security or freedom of the people of Scotland and Wales. If the proposed Assemblies are established, we shall have created a monstrously unjust


and unbalanced arrangement which will adversely affect England and Northern Ireland. The Bill provides not only for changes in the government of Scotland and Wales but for worse and less representative government in England and Northern Ireland.
If the Long Title is held to prevent English Members from discussing in detail the implications for England and Northern Ireland, implications that harm will be inflicted upon our constituents, then, to quote the words of someone who was well-known in this House, "up with that I will not put." It is like saying, if a man has been charged with criminal rape, that the matter ends with his conviction and punishment and the actual bodily harm that he has done to his victim. Nothing of the kind. There never can be any reparation for a crime of that kind. There is the harm done to the marriage and the children. Who can calculate that? Those of us who hold weekly surgeries know the immense amount of human suffering that results from a single criminal act. It cannot be calculated.
It is idiotic to pretend that because the Bill gives Assemblies to Wales and Scotland, which some people in those countries in their wisdom or lack of it desire, that will not affect England. It is palpably clear that the measure will affect England adversely. That is a state of affairs that English Members of Parliament and their constituents will not put up with. If the Bill is not changed we shall embark on a journey that can lead only to disaster for the whole of the United Kingdom.
Reference has been made to the disadvantages which our Scottish colleagues will face in the House of Commons. The speech of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) fastened clearly on the disadvantages which Scottish Members would face in future. I do no want the number of Scottish and Welsh Members to be reduced, although inevitably that will happen if we proceed with the Bill. The Scots, the Welsh and the Irish, who in their different ways have contributed to the glory and greatness of our country, add to the wisdom and illumination of Parliament. I do not want them to be driven out, but that will happen.
I make a plea to the Government on behalf of my constituents to think again. There is time yet for second thoughts. The people of the whole country should be consulted to see whether they want the proposals set out in the Bill. I do not ask that the more populous England —with its many Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish and Southern Irish people—should have a veto over what should happen in Scotland and Wales. All I ask is that the people in every part of the United Kingdom who live together and work together—whose fathers have striven and died together in two world wars—should have the opportunity of expressing a view upon the course that the Government seek to take before the Bill is put on the statute book. It is not too late. A wise Government would pause, reflect and consult the people.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I agree with the hon. Member for Essex, South-Eact (Sir B. Braine) that we should be thinking of ourselves as British, as well as English, Scots, Irish or Welsh. This debate seems to bring out nationalistic thinking. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, he is now beginning to think of himself as English, when he had never thought of it before.
In that sense the Bill, when it talks of not affecting the unity of the United Kingdom, is itself beginning to affect it. We were told that the intention of the devolution proposals was to strengthen the unity of the United Kingdom, and of all the people in these islands. Yet the Bill itself says that its proposals will not affect that unity. I believe that the Bill will affect the unity in a number of ways.
I agree with the hon. Member for Essex, South-East about the Government having got their priorities wrong. At a time when they should be maximising the unity of people in order to solve the critical economic problems, they are embarking on this major change of the machinery of government. One wonders whether this is a Machiavellian exercise to divert attention from the fundamental problems facing this country at present.
Some of us said originally that if we staged a debate on devolution it would be divisive, and one needs only to attend the debates here to find out just how divisive they are. They are not just


divisive in terms of different political parties. All the parties are divided among themselves. Even the nationalists are divided as to how they will go about it. [Interruption.] Yes, they are divided in their approach to the Bill. Certainly with the major parties this has proved a divisive issue.
The Government are not creating a situation of unity by suggesting that they should set up an Assembly costing £3·8 million and by creating a new tier of government with an annual running cost of £12·5 million at a time when they are calling upon local authorities to restrict their spending on essential services. Even if at some other time there is a case for embarking on the creation of such an Assembly, that time is certainly not now.
Wales has a population of fewer than 3 million people. London, where we meet, has a population of 9 million. London has the Greater London Council and the metropolitan authorities underneath. In Wales we have numerous community councils, 37 district councils, eight county councils, a Welsh Office—a Government Department—and a Secretary of State in the Cabinet. Now it is proposed that, in addition to all that, we should have a new spending authority—a Welsh Assembly—which will have no extra resources to spend, and no powers to raise revenue. Already there are rumblings in local government circles. The Government have said nothing, in creating this new Assembly, about what will happen to the district councils and the county councils. Already the disunity has begun in that regard. So I cannot see that these proposals as they stand will unify Wales with the rest of the country.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: Is my hon. Friend against the reform of local government?

Mr. Evans: I do not believe that we should do that at present. But the Government should face the situation that their policy is to transfer resources from public administration and into manufacturing industry, and this is, therefore, the wrong time to introduce yet another tier of local government.
The proposals involve employing 1,300 civil servants to service the Assembly,

yet the Government have decided to stop payment of the regional employment premium on workers in the development areas. This was an incentive to get workers into manufacturing industry. If the Government stop it, that will not help the unity of these islands.
Local government reform should be carried out effectively and efficiently and should not be done in a hurry. My party criticised the Conservatives for the way in which they reorganised local government. We objected to the inclusion of both England and Wales in the same local government Bill. I do not see how we can criticise the Conservatives on that score when my Government are putting Scotland and Wales in the same devolution Bill.
Some hon. Members adopt a strange attitude in insisting that these two major measures should be embodied in one Bill.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Does the hon. Member agree that there was more reason for having one local government Bill dealing with England and Wales than there is for having one devolution Bill covering Scotland and Wales? England and Wales have the same law, while Scotland and Wales have different systems.

Mr. Evans: I disagreed with the proposals put forward by the Conservatives for local government reform, and I disagreed with their timing. It would have been better to leave local government reorganisation until the Kilbrandon Commission had reported. However, I accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. Local government in England and Wales has followed a similar structure and there was in that sense more merit in having one Bill to cover the two nations than there is in having one devolution Bill to cover both Wales and Scotland.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) will remember our debates on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, which attempted to reform the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend, now the Leader of the House, worked together to defeat that Bill, even though it had all-party support. If a Bill which had all-party support was unable to get through the House I do not think that the Assemblies are as near as hon. Members think.


Their colleagues do not need to prepare themselves just yet to stand for the Assemblies.
The Bill has opened a Pandora's Box for the Government. Matters will be entering into the debate that were never contemplated. The Bill—if it becomes law—will leave more questions unanswered and will raise more questions and problems than were ever contemplated. It has been said that the aim of the Bill is to strengthen the unity of the United Kingdom. It is very strange that the Scottish and Welsh nationalists appear to be the main supporters of a Bill that is supposedly seeking to maintain unity.
These proposals seriously endanger the unity of Britain. For that reason I welcome the concession that the Government have made in holding referenda for both Scotland and Wales because, in the end, it will be the Scots and the Welsh people who will decide. The Government are to be applauded for that. I hope that we shall now be given details of the clause that will deal with the referenda. Why must we wait so long for the Government to consider these matters? I should have thought that the Government would now be ready to draft something. If hon. Members knew what the Government intend, they would be able to decide on their reactions to the Bill instead of just waiting.
There are other dangers in the Bill. I know that not all hon. Members will agree with me, but a system of proportional representation—if we introduce it—will not be advantageous to the country. There would be long argument about changing the electoral system and there would be one system for the Assembly, another for Parliament and another for Europe.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Ioan Evans) has told us that he is opposed to the proposals in the Bill, although his opposition has not yet been demonstrated in the Lobby. What measure does he advocate to maintain the unity of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Evans: We are united as we are. There should be devolution of certain powers from Westminster, but we must think about devolution to the whole of Britain. Let us have a system of regional

organisation and make responsible to an elected body some of the authorities that are now not elected and are not responsible to the people.
We must not make the mistake that we have made in recent years in carrying out reorganisation, such as that of the National Health Service. We did not choose the best way of doing it. Neither did we choose the best means of reorganising local government or the water industry. We must not produce any old form of devolution just because devolution is in the manifesto. We must have devolution that will unite people.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: My party certainly believes in the unity of the people of the United Kingdom as it is laid down in the Bill. We have always accepted that the position of the Queen should be maintained as the head of the federation of Britain.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman claims that he believes in the unity of the United Kingdom, but the Welsh nationalists have asked for independence and separatism.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I would like the hon. Gentleman to cite where my party, in any of our manifestos, has argued for separatism. We have always argued for national status within an interdependent political system in Britain.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Evans: Now we are getting into semantics. I am interested to hear that the Scottish nationalists believe in independence and a separate Scotland. Despite all the talk at Plaid Cymru conferences about independence and separation, the Welsh nationalist Members do not believe in an independent Wales.
Not only are there the dangers involved in changing the electoral system; there is also the danger that the number of Welsh Members in this House may be reduced. It is no use saying that this will not happen; we cannot foresee the situation in Parliament five or 10 years hence.
In considering the establishment of the Assembly at Cardiff, we must take into account not just the financial cost but the political cost of fewer Welsh Members in this House. This Parliament will decide how much the Assembly may spend, and it would be better for Wales


to have more hon. Members here, rather than plenty of representatives in Cardiff deciding how to spend money allocated by this House.
If these powers are transferred, what will happen to the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State? One of the reasons for Wales and Scotland having maintained their national identities is that they have Secretaries of State in the Cabinet. Does anyone think that they will stay in the Cabinet if the Bill is passed?
We have already had arguments about the future rôle of Scottish and Welsh Members in this House. At present, hon. Members from Wales, Scotland and all other parts of the United Kingdom speak in equality and can ask Questions on a whole range of matters. We have Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees and separate Question Times for each country. How will they be affected if the Bill is passed?
The SNP is a passing phase. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) has been in and out of the House. She is in now, but she will soon be out again.
The hon. Members for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans), Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) and Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) are in the House only because the anti-Labour vote went to them. Unlike the majority of hon. Members, they had minority support, and I do not think that they will return after the next General Election.
The Government claim that the Bill will unite us, but there are dangers that it will cause great disunity. There are a number of points on which we should spell out to the people of Wales and Scotland before the referenda not what is being given but what is being taken away from them. Without devolution proposals which are right and workable and what the people want, there is a danger that we shall play into the hands of the nationalists. That will be to the major disadvantage of the people of Wales and Scotland.

Mr. George Gardiner: This debate has surely stripped of any credibility and respectability at least the second sentence of Clause 1. We cannot argue with the first sentence, that this is a Bill
to make changes in the government of Scotland and Wales".

Mr. Charles Morrison: Surely my hon. Friend does not believe that. It would be much better to deal with the second part of that sentence. The Bill makes a change not only in the government of Scotland and Wales but, much more important, in the government of the whole of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gardiner: That is precisely the point that I was hoping to make. But the most amazing sentence in the clause is the second one, which says that the provisions of the clause
do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) demonstrated the sheer falsity of that assertion.
I wonder how the Government drafted the Bill. Perhaps they began by looking back ruefully at their election commitments, at the White Paper which was rushed out just before the last election in the hope of safeguarding Labour seats in Scotland. Perhaps they said "This is what we are committed to, and we shall draft a Bill which appears to give effect to it." But then they considered the risks, drawbacks and disadvantages, and decided to cover themselves with a declamatory clause which said that they did not exist.
After hearing this debate so far, no one can doubt that the provisions of the Bill certainly affect the unity of the United Kingdom. Speaker after speaker has shown that we cannot approach this issue of devolution, whether we are for it or against it in principle, without at the same time dealing with the issue of representation. The two issues are bound up inextricably.
History gives ample proof. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has drawn attention to several pertinent aspects of the history of Ireland and this country's relations with it. We can look at the history of Ireland for instruction in many respects on this Bill. But that history shows that throughout the last century and into the early years of this century, when the government of Ireland was being considered, there was no doubt that the issue of devolution to Ireland in its different forms and the issue of Irish representation in this House were inextricably bound up together.
The first Home Rule Bill in 1886 proposed to abolish Irish representation here. The second proposal, in 1893, was to reduce the number of Irish Members at Westminster by half. The third proposal, in the 1912 Bill, was to retain all the Irish Members here. In 1921, when the Irish Parliaments for the North and the South were technically set up, the representation of both parts was reduced because it was proposed to set up other Parliaments.
Therefore, when we look at the history of Ireland we observe that the issues of devolution and representation were always seen as part of the same thing, and that one could not proceed with the one without doing something about the other. Yet, my most fundamental objection to the Bill is that it seeks to put these matters into watertight compartments and imagines that one can make fundamental changes to the distribution of legislative power in the United Kingdom and yet make no changes to the representation in this House of the different constituent parts.
Do the Government imagine that this situation can hold? The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) demonstrated with great clarity some of the ridiculous anomalies that would arise for a Westminster Member from Scotland, looking at the matter in terms of the issues on which he would be invited to vote for England and Northern Ireland but on which he would be powerless to vote in respect of his own constituency and the whole of Scotland.
There is another side to that coin. What shall we English Members and our constituents think when 71 Scottish Members vote on English roads, housing, education and so on, while we have no say on similar matters in Scotland? That means creating two classes of Members and giving the English far less direct say in their own affairs than is given to another constituent part of the United Kingdom. Do hon. Members believe that that could hold for long? Do they think that there would be no upsurge of resentment in England when issues were decided in that way and it was demonstrable that the people of Scotland were deciding them for themselves without any influence being brought to bear on them from this House?
The term "the English backlash" is not one that I would ever use, because I do not wish to foment differences or animosity between the English and the Scots. In my early years here as a Press Gallery representative I represented a Scottish newspaper and acquired a close interest in Scottish affairs. But the term is used, and that is unfortunate. I do not think that anything has yet happened to justify it. The argument in England has been rather slower to start than it has been north of the border.
11.15 p.m.
A backlash as such there has not been. I put it seriously to Ministers that if they carry through this piece of legislation, radically affecting the distribution of responsibilities for legislation in the United Kingdom and yet keep 71 Scottish Members of Parliament here, behaving as if nothing had ever happened and as if all was going on as before, there is a danger of an English backlash. There is a danger that resentments and animosities will build up, leading to the weakening, if not the destruction, of the unity of our United Kingdom.
How fatuous it is to claim that in this clause the Bill's provisions do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom. I have referred to Irish history. We have seen before how, in 1886, there was a nasty backlash in England against the Irish. I would not like to see that kind of thing happening here in relation to the Scots. I speak as an English Member. It is my duty to do that.
Let us not forget the other dimension, the Northern Irish aspect. Here we have a body of people who, in the main, show great loyalty to the United Kingdom and to our institutions. They are undoubtedly a people under strain, who have been under strain for six or seven years. What are they to make of a situation in which they are to continue to be underrepresented in the House of Commons because some time ago they were given a devolved Assembly or Parliament, while another constituent part of the United Kingdom is to remain over-represented here and at the same time have a devolved Assembly?
What will the citizens of Northern Ireland make of that? The only legitimate conclusion they can reach is that the Government are content to treat and


regard them as second-class citizens. There can be no other conclusion which they can reach. I am not saying that this will undermine the unity of the United Kingdom as such. But I do say that it is a shabby way to treat citizens of this country who have shown great loyalty to it and live under such strain.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is not the situation more savage than that? Is it not a fact that the people of Northern Ireland enjoyed and practised, with quite a degree of success, a parliamentary government of their own for 50 years—a government which we took away? We are now conferring Assemblies, limited Parliaments, upon the Welsh and the Scots without remedying the grievances of the people of Ulster. Is that the way to build national unity?

Mr. Gardiner: I take my hon. Friend's point. Not only is there an English dimension in this argument—which the Government cannot ignore—but there is an Ulster dimension. If the Government attempt to continue to sweep this under the carpet, pretending that it does not exist, they will build up a mountain of trouble for which we shall have to suffer.
There is another problem which worries me. I fear that there is a danger that the Scots are being over-sold on the Bill. The Bill will not live up to expectations, with the result that there will be grave dispute. I can intellectually accept quite a lot of the arguments for devolution. It should be devolution with clearly defined functions transferred, including some provision for raising finance. What is being proposed is devolution with a thousand strings, all tangled up. We do not know which ones will be pulled. It is a rather dirty form of devolution that is being proposed. I am sure that when the consequent friction and conflict which will arise from this measure—if it ever reaches the statute book—become apparent, the Scottish people will soon feel that they have been badly treated by this Parliament. That, too, would put an additional strain on the unity of the United Kingdom, because we should be creating resentment and bitterness which does not exist now. I submit that to claim that the Bill does not affect the unity of the United Kingdom is effrontery to the House of Commons.
The second point—that the Bill will not affect the supreme authority of Parliament—has been dealt with fully by others of my hon. Friends.
Attention has been drawn to the way that Clause 18 undoubtedly infringes the sovereignty of this Parliament.
Clause 44, to which attention has been drawn, but only by way of points of order, allows Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to make
amendments of the law of the United Kingdom or any part of it
—that includes England and Northern Ireland—consequent upon measures passed by a Scottish Assembly. An Order in Council can be debated in the House of Commons, but for a limited time only. Therefore, there is the possibility of substantial changes in laws applying to England and to Northern Ireland, in consequence of legislation passed by a Scottish Assembly, being debated in the House for a limited time. That is the kind of monstrosity that is before us in the Bill.
It would have been better to begin the debate on the Bill in Committee without Clause 1. It is said that it does not affect anything or make any difference. The trouble is that it begins by spelling out blatant untruths. I urge hon. Members to vote for the amendment, because without some amendment of Clause 1 the whole Bill is built on a fraud, and that is an unsound basis for legislation.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: We must address ourselves to the clause and hold our breath somewhat for the meat of the Bill which, from long experience in Committee, will entail many hours of debate. This is an hors d'oeuvre—a taster of what the Government will get. We are dealing only with the preliminaries. Therefore, for the moment we can be relatively brief. However, if I should become very interested, I do not know when I shall stop.
I am amazed that the Government should have placed themselves in difficulty at this stage by creating doubts in the minds of some hon. Members who might otherwise have been willing to consider somewhat more deeply the Government's reasons for producing the Bill in


this form and to go some way towards helping them with it.
All that Clause 1 does for me is to confirm that I was right to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. I take for granted that the Opposition are opposed to the Bill, and I entirely welcome that fact.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: You are just as reactionary as the Tories.

Mr. Leadbitter: I do not welcome it for selfish instincts, nor for the reason given in that rude interjection from a sedentary position by my colleague the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), who has just entered the Chamber. I believe that certain of my hon. Friends who voted for the Second Reading of the Bill and had great convictions against it months before and until recently should consider the importance of Parliament taking the one opportunity that it has had in recent years of asserting to the Government "This is where the power lies." We should learn from the lessons of recent history and take the opportunity to call a halt to the decline in the power of the House of Commons. [Interruption.]
I must tell my colleagues and some who are more interested in taking part in a mothers' meeting than listening to the debate that I now intend to deal with a great untruth in the first clause. Whether my hon. Friends like it or not, while I am a Member of the House of Commons I shall not be party to a blatant untruth. Hon. Members are sometimes disciplined for using an untruth if they do not have the decency to withdraw it. That applies to Governments as well as individuals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that the legislation is the result of reaction rather than a determination about what is right for the United Kingdom. He said that we were seeking to legislate not because of the will of the people but because, we are reacting on party political grounds. He said that that was the mistake being made by the Labour Party—a mistake similar to that which arose from the famous speech made in 1968 by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in Scotland.
Having asserted that both parties made the same mistake, it is unpleasant for any hon. Member to find a total untruth in the first paragraph of this Bill. I shall demonstrate that it is an untruth, and I shall challenge any hon. Member to dispute it. The Bill states that the measures:
do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it.
But if one stuck Clause 18 on the end of that passage, the paragraph would continue:
A Scottish Assembly Act may amend or repeal a provision made by or under an Act of Parliament.
Clause 1 is therefore untruthful, because the Bill allows interference with the lawmaking processes of the supreme political institution in the United Kingdom.
The other great untruth involves the omissions from the Bill. Those of us who are in public life know what that means especially if we approach a Government Department. What matters is not what is said but what is not said. What is not said here was underlined by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He said that if one has not got the will to make laws, if one does not have a continuous oversight of legislation over the United Kingdom as a whole, one dispenses with responsibility. Once one dispenses with responsibility and the will to make laws, what has happened elsewhere in the world will apply. That is, one gives to the Assembly the power that it really has and not what is written in the Bill. That is why one political party in the House of Commons is hoping that the Bill will go through. It is what is not in the Bill that its Members recognise exists in reality.
11.30 p.m.
Not only will the Assembly have powers. It will seek more powers, because it will not be satisfied with merely disbursing the moneys that this Parliament allocates to it. It will demand more. It will become a lazy Assembly. It will not want the hard work of raising moneys itself. It will not look for that kind of power. It will want more money from the United Kingdom Parliament.
In addition to that kind of struggle, there are the arguments of my hon. Friends the Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). There are to be two Members from each constituency in Scotland in the Assembly and one Member in this Parliament—thrown into the maelstrom of the arguments about raising money and about power and the exercise of that power in the form of legislation, and the conflict of that with the interests of this Parliament.

Mr. Dalyell: Representing a North Sea constituency as he does, can my hon. Friend imagine any Assembly that remained content without putting its hands on the oil revenues or part of them?

Mr. Leadbitter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that matter. It has come home recently in the awareness of the people living near the North Region. I shall come to it later when I talk about unity.

Mr. Canavan: Cod-liver oil.

Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend has always approached every kind of problem with his mouth open. He has been like that ever since he was born.
The interesting thing is that when the Government start their legislation in this way, how can they hope to convince hon. Members that they are sincere? Another question must be raised. Why did the Government feel that it was important to assure us that the effects on the United Kingdom and on our rights to pass laws would not be adverse? Why have they sought to convince us? What kind of doubts did they have? My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central, asked whether the removal of this clause would alter one iota of the Bill. We all know that the answer is that it would not affect the Bill at all. That is what is aggravating about the clause. It was not necessary. However, the Government found a need to put it in because they had doubts.
Not all members of the Government are behind the Bill, by any stretch of the imagination. The Bill has been vomited out of a state of panic. All hon. Members know that there is a totally cross-party interest here that neither the Government nor anyone else can control. The House of Commons is now asserting itself.

Hon. Members on both sides have decided to have their voices heard. They are saying "This is something that affects the United Kingdom as a whole, and unity, difficult though it may be to define, is something that we hold intrinsically high in our esteem as public servants in the House of Commons and we are here to defend it." That is the notion of individual Members. Once that position has developed, we have a right to say to the Government—and what state of wisdom have members of the Government that Back Bench Members do not have on a matter such as this?—"Who has attributed to the Government that they know better than we do?"
Over the past few years some hon. Members have said in their constituencies that they are against devolution. But some of them, because they are now in office and on the payroll, have had to change their mind and say that they are for it. It is their consciences that must be questioned, not those of hon. Members such as myself who made up their minds that the House of Commons would be asserting its authority on this matter.
Already in the United Kingdom we are seeing, unfortunately, the seedcorn of disunity bearing fruit. In certain regions of England there is already the strong feeling that England is being neglected in many respects for considerations that are not always understood and are defined in the general term "It is political". I must make it abundantly clear that in the argument that will continue for the next few months, it will be totally wrong for any hon. Member to talk about English people, Scottish people and Welsh people, being against each other. We must confine our argument about the divisions between parties.
In the House of Commons there is the official Opposition, the Government party, the Back Benchers on either side of the Chamber and other groups. We can make it clear that it is not the division between the peoples that is at issue but a reaction of minority groups. If we do that, we can defeat this legislation and get some sense back into the relationships between the people in the various regions.
Let this be a warning. I have never felt such bitterness as when I arrived at my constituency on Christmas Eve. There


had been a mistaken report on a certain course of action that had been decided by the Government. It concerned a matter that I was quite prepared to put right, but what is important is that there was an upsurge. Over Christmas and the New Year I had to attend meeting after meeting to get people who had normally been sensible and carefully determined to consider the matter that lay before them. However, I did not succeed in persuading them that there is not a bias being worked out in the House of Commons that appears to work against the interests of my people.
For what it is worth, no Government, by power or terms in office, can make the electorate accept this sort of legislation if the electors in England have doubts about their objectives. I have an oil interest in my area. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire talked about cod-liver oil. In my constituency over 2,000 men produced the largest oil rigs in the world on time. That has never been done by any other yard in the world. My hon. Friend does not want to sit in his place smugly talking about my constituency. As was said from the Opposition Benches, "When it comes to defending my constituency, there is no one here who can challenge me." I resent it that my hon. Friend should talk in that sort of way about working people who produce the largest oil rigs in the world. What has happened to those workers? Every one of them has lost his job. Can the Committee imagine how they feel when they see more favoured treatment being meted out to Scotland.

Mr. Canavan: rose—

Mr. Leadbitter: I will give way to my hon. Friend when I have finished this point. It will not hurt him to practise standing on his feet; he has been in a sedentary position for a long time.
The unity of the United Kingdom is not helped by this kind of divisive legislation. It will not be assisted by the spending of millions of pounds on creating more civil servants, more people to conduct talking shops. The way to create unity is for the United Kingdom Parliament to use the whole of its resources, —material, manpower and financial—on behalf of the people as a whole, and to distribute those resources so that we can

get the economy on its feet. We must stop this piecemeal way of dealing with these matters, a bit here for somebody and a bit there for somebody else, hoping that such action will bring political kudos.
The unity of the United Kingdom is not maintained by mere assurances that this measure will not affect the overall situation. Every speech I have heard in this debate has been against this Bill and the clause. I have not heard one speaker on either side of the Committee speak for the measure.
The Government appear to be out on a limb, certainly when we examine opinion in the country. I assure the Government that the people of the United Kingdom, particularly the silent majority, are now beginning to wake up. They are asking for a fair share of the resources of the United Kingdom for their own areas.

Mr. Canavan: I have a great deal of respect for my hon. Friend because he and I were on the Standing Committee which helped to set up the British National Oil Corporation. On the subject of oil development, will he admit that the real battle is not between the Scottish people and the English people but between the working people of Scotland, England and Wales and any other part of the United Kingdom against the multinational oil companies? That is the battle that we should be fighting, not just this silly Scotland versus England nationalistic battle, which seems to be the essence of my hon. Friend's speech.

Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend obviously did not listen to what I said. I said that I did not want to be party to any measure that brought about a division between the people of England, Scotland and Wales. I also described the Bill as having been vomited in panic because of party considerations. Let me be blunt and say that the parties in the House of Commons have been too damned concerned about saving seats—that is the nub of it. I was not sent to this House with a remit to vote for legislation for the wrong reasons. Therefore, I shall not support this clause, as I did not vote for the Second Reading, and I shall not vote for the Third Reading of the Bill. Unless they stop it, the Government will have to accept that we have got the Bill for the wrong reasons. I have a sneaking suspicion that they


are hoping to God that a General Election will come along and stop it.
At the beginning of my speech I talked about the hors d'oeuvre. We have now come to the cognac. I am satisfied that if a General Election did come about at the right time we would not have this Bill.
11.45 p.m.
If we want to talk about unity, and about protecting ourselves and the lawgiving powers that we have in this House of Commons, we have to accept that we shall not have that responsibility because in this Bill they are not there. We also have to accept that we shall not have the will, because that will not be there either.
Real unity lies in the resolve and will of this House to sweep this Bill aside and throw it out in order to get on with the business of the economy and of utilising our resources—material, manpower and financial—in order that the United Kingdom people as a whole can benefit from some wise legislation instead of this nonsense.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Listening to this long debate, one would imagine that it had originated in a vacuum and that there was nothing happening in the wider world outside.
I would respectfully remind the Committee that the political pressures to which reference has been made—there is nothing wrong with democratic demands and political pressure in Scotland in particular—have insisted upon the Government introducing this legislation.
It is a fact of political life in Scotland that there is no going back on it. There is no question of remaining with the status quo, because public opinion in Scotland has marched on. What is not realised is that the Treaty of Union in 1707 was a partnership.
Reference was made earlier to the fact that there was an Act of Union. I think it was the Lord President who used that expression. There was no Act of Union. There were Acts of Union which followed a treaty between two sovereign countries.
It is within the bounds of domestic law, as well as international law, that a partnership can be revised if the individual units to that partnership indicate that

some revision is necessary. Indeed, the Treaty of Union itself was revised over a period of time.
From time to time there were many complaints in Scotland about the way in which that treaty was revised. One of the firt revisions was the foisting upon the Scottish legal system of an appeals procedure to the House of Lords despite the fact that within the Treaty of Union there was a clear prohibition of appeals on Scottish cases being taken in Westminster Hall.

Mr. Peter Rees: Is the hon. Gentleman convinced, and is he prepared to tell the Committee, that we in the House of Commons are entitled to amend the fundamental provisions of the Act or Treaty of Union, however the hon. Gentleman chooses to describe it?

Mr. Wilson: If the hon. and learned Gentleman follows what I shall say, I shall perhaps explain. I was indicating that we had a situation where the individual countries came together in a voluntary partnership as a result of treaties negotiated.
Perhaps for one delicate moment I might be in agreement with the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). Unity or national status is an organic matter. It is a matter of what people feel. It can be proved in fact as well as feeling. It cannot be contained simply in the terms of Clause 1. There will be unity only if the people of Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland wish to remain in a close relationship. If through changes in public opinion or mood or through events it becomes apparent that change is necessary, change there must be. The Bill has been introduced on that basis.
I do not rush headlong to approve the contents of the Bill. The powers it gives to the Scottish Assembly are very restricted, and it could be improved by giving the Assembly more powers. We believe that in the course of time those powers will come. Hon. Members who oppose the Bill on the ground that it is unstable or likely to lead to friction do not argue that the status quo should remain. They argue for a step further, either towards a form of quasi-federalism or to federalism, recognising that if power is devolved the job of the Assembly


must be worth while, otherwise it will be frustrated and unable to carry out the job for which its Members are elected.
Sovereignty is a matter of political expression in general elections or elections to the Scottish Assembly. The clause is unnecessary because, while it is a question of fact that Parliament is sovereign, Parliament is sovereign whatever is done about it. On the other hand, if Scottish people, being sovereign, take the view that in exercise of their sovereignty the Assembly should be equipped with full powers, that will happen. It is irresistible if the Scottish people want it that way.
I regret that the Government have included in the Bill a clause which has no statutory effect. If the clause were eliminated the Bill would be no weaker, nor would it be stronger, because the fundamental position of the Wesminster Parliament would remain the same. If the clause is inserted as a declaration of intent or as a guideline—to whom or what I am not sure—balanced advice should be given. The clause states that the provisions of the Bill:
do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it.
At the outset there is a declaration that the House of Commons regardless of the individual powers which it reserves in the Bill, will exercise an overall sovereignty. That is bound to be offensive to the Scottish people. It would be helpful if the Government were to balance out the clause.
In a federation or quasi-federation power is devolved within certain limits, and there is a statutory or other understanding that the devolved authority will have the right to carry out its functions within the powers given to it without invasion from the centre. Without that sort of understanding, one is heading for friction. It would be desirable to write into Clause 1 a formula which would allow some balance to be observed, so that the House of Commons, in the exercise of future sovereignty, should be bound by guidelines suggesting when its powers should not he exercised.
I draw the attention of hon. Members to Amendment No. 311 in my name and the names of my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart),

and others, including an English Member. The amendment will
provide for the devolution of powers which shall not hereafter be subject to interference or erosion by the Government or Parliament of the United Kingdom, save with the consent of the Assemblies hereinafter mentioned".
Of course that does not prevent the Scottish or Welsh Assemblies, for purposes of convenience, agreeing to give up certain powers if they so desire. The amendment would allow a working arrangement to be effected. It would also have the effect of preventing the House of Commons from trying to upset the work of the Scottish or Welsh Assemblies by questioning the actions of Members of those Assemblies through Ministers of this House. Ministers here have no authority in these matters in terms of this statute, unless they exercise their overriding authority. That would lead to duplication and confusion. We should establish a convention from the outset that the House of Commons should not unnecessarily or unduly interfere with the exercise of the Assemblies' powers of sovereignty.
The purpose of my hon. Friends and myself is to obtain a sovereign Scottish Parliament, but if we are to operate within the confines of this Bill as a temporary expedient, it would be desirable that the Bill should be made as capable of working as possible. I think that hon. Members here should show more faith and trust in the Scottish people. Unity is an organic matter, and hon. Members have to take the Scottish people with them in what they are doing. There may well be a reciprocal understanding in the Scottish Assembly if there is a proper exercise of power within the terms of the Bill.
I have said before that relationships between an independent Scotland and an independent England, or an independent Wales, would require plenty of friendly working contacts, and we in the Scottish National Party seek to achieve that.
I hope that, in view of the need for balance, our amendment will be selected for a vote at the end of these proceedings.

Sir Nigel Fisher: I shall be very brief at this late hour—

An Hon. Member: Why?

Sir Nigel Fisher: Because there are others who want to speak. I intervene


only because—[An HON. MEMBER: "Sit down."] That is a mean thing to say, because I sat through seven hours of the Second Reading before being called to speak, and I sat here for many hours last week but was unable to speak because the Government moved the closure. I do not require instructions on what I should do in the House of Commons from the hon. Member.
I intervene only because I was astonished to see the bland assertion in Clause 1 that the Bill's provisions do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom. Of course they do. That is why so many of my hon. Friends are opposed not only to the clause and to the Bill but to the whole principle and concept of devolution. We believe that it will lead inevitably to the break-up of the United Kingdom. I appreciate that that is not the view of the official Opposition. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and other hon. Friends believe that if we give the Scottish nationalists nothing, that also will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. I acknowledge that it is arguable either way and I do not want to appear dogmatic about it.
12 m.
I understand the views of my right hon. and hon. Friends who argue with conviction and sincerity that without some measure of devolution we shall simply encourage an upsurge of Scottish nationalism and bring about the very result that none of us except the Scottish nationalists wants. But in this case, as on other occasions in the past, I do not believe that appeasement pays. In support of that belief I ask the Committee to consider the position of the Scottish National Members. They are the best argument that a Unionist could have against the Bill. They want the Bill, not because it is all that they want, but because it is, in their view, an essential first step to what they really want, which is separatism.
They have said that openly and honestly. They all say it in different words. Some call it independence and some call it separatism. They all want it, and it is the only thing that unites them. I understand that some of them are Conservatives and some are Socialists. They are united on only one issue—separatism from England.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman define "separatism"? Will he also say in what way our aim, which is Commonwealth status loyal to the Crown, is in any way unacceptable to the House of Commons and contrary to the tradition of granting that status to very many countries?

Sir Nigel Fisher: I understand that the hon. Lady may prefer to call it independence. She wants to break the United Kingdom connection and be a member of the Commonwealth like any other colony. I do not think of Scotland as a colony, but as an integral part of the United Kingdom. I suggest that that is the view of the vast majority of the House of Commons. It is no use the hon. Lady indulging in semantics on this subject. We know where she stands on it, and her party is united on that point even if it is divided on others.
The Scottish nationalists regard the Bill as the Trojan horse for separatism. So do I, and that is why I am against it. An independent Scotland would weaken Britain as an influence for good in world affairs. It would be a reversal of two-and-a-half centuries of our history. Though I speak, as an Englishman with a certain diffidence, I should have thought that it would also be the worst possible thing for Scotland.
Do the Scots really want to lose all influence and opportunity in Britain? Is that what the hon. Lady's constituents want? Do they want to sever the ties which are of great value to them as well as to England, ties which have bound us together and have brought social, commercial, industrial and political benefits to all parts of the United Kingdom, and not least to Scotland?
I simply do not believe that that is what the majority of the Scottish people want. Yet that is where I believe this clause and this Bill will certainly lead. The Scottish nationalists will never be content with an Assembly that is just a debating chamber, or with the degree of devolution that they will gain from the Bill. They will always want and demand more and more. They acknowledge that. I see them nodding their heads now. They want more power to tax, to spend and to govern in Scotland. The Bill will create a continual conflict between the Assembly in Edinburgh and the House of


Commons in London. Is that what the Government really want? Is that what my Front Bench wants? Of course it is not. Yet I fear that that is the road upon which both Front Benches are now setting out.
The very least that we should do before setting out on this dangerous road is to find out what the Scottish people want. That is why I am in favour of a referendum in this case. I dislike referenda very much because they are a negation of parliamentary government, but in this case I must make an exception. I want to know what the majority of the Scottish people want. I hope that now that the Lord President has agreed to have a referendum he will arrange for it to be held soon. It would be absurd for the House of Commons to go on week after week, discussing the Bill for two days each week, and then find out at the end of it that the Scottish people do not want the Bill. I hope the referendum will be held soon and not after the passage of the Bill through the House.

Mr. Dalyell: What question or questions would the hon. Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) put in a referendum?

Sir Nigel Fisher: The first question I would put is, "Are you in favour of separatism?" I believe the answer to that would be an overwhelming "No", and that would dish the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) and her hon. Friends. It would be a rejection of their claim to speak for the people of Scotland.
I must admit that if the second question was "Are you in favour of devolution as expressed in the Bill?" and the answer was, as it might be, a majority of "Yes", the weapon of a referendum would, to a certain extent be double edged. I and those of my colleagues who are wholly against the Bill would be somewhat disarmed.
I accept that one runs the risk of not getting the answer that one wants, but it would still be a gain if it was firmly established that the vast majority of Scottish people do not want separatism. I would risk the second question, to which I might not like the answer, in order to to get the answer that I know I would like from the first question. It might mitigate my opposition to the Bill.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is perfectly possible that the referendum question could be phrased so that it would not be likely to produce the best results?

Sir Nigel Fisher: That is always possible, and that is one of the difficulties about a referendum: one must be careful about the question in order to get the answer that one wants.

Mr. Dalyell: If, as the hon. Member says, the question is drafted as "Do you accept the Government's devolution package?", or words to that effect, that would unite people such as the Scottish National Party with many hundreds of Labour councillors and people such as me who take an opposite view. There are great difficulties.

Sir Nigel Fisher: There are dangers. I hope that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will use his influence with the Treasury Bench to make sure that the question is suitably phrased. It is extremely important.

Mr. Tim Renton: It would be helpful if the Lord President tabled the terms of reference of the referendum, as the Prime Minister promised some weeks ago, so that we could have an opportunity—even if the referendum does not take place until the Bill has received Royal Assent—to discuss the terms of reference.

The Chairman(Mr. Oscar Murton): The Committee is getting wide of the amendment by talking about details of the terms of reference for the referendum.

Sir Nigel Fisher: If that rebuke was intended to apply to me, I accept it. I will leave the whole question of the referendum because my allusion to it has caused many hon. Members from both sides to intervene with suggestions. But I welcome the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) because it is a very sensible one.

Sir Bernard Braine: We are discussing the words of the Bill which touch on the unity of the whole United Kingdom. Why does my hon. Friend advocate a referendum for the people of Scotland only? As this is a matter affecting the unity of the whole kingdom, why should


not all the people, voting in each constituent part of the kingdom, be permitted to express their views? Is it not the whole future of our country and nation which is at stake?

Sir Nigel Fisher: Yes, but one must confine oneself to what is practicable and I have not advocated the course suggested by my hon. Friend because I do not think that it has any chance of being accepted by the Government. That may not be a good reason, but it is better to confine ourselves to what we consider to be practicable.
The most cynical aspects of the Government's proposals the intention to retain the existing Scottish representation in this House—where Scotland is already over-represented compared with England —and create, at the same time, double that number of seats in the Assembly.
Scots will be able to vote on English Bills, but English Members will not be able to vote on Scottish Bills. So far, I have not heard Ministers answer this point, and I believe that they cannot justify this situation except on the grounds of party necessity; they depend for their majority here on Scottish and Welsh seats. If there are any other arguments in favour of this action, I hope that the Minister will spell them out. If he does not refer to this rather delicate matter, the country will understand that the Government are guilty of gerrymandering the composition of Parliament for party political purposes.
In conclusion, if we pass this amendment, we shall at least have stated categorically that the provisions of the Bill shall not be interpreted as affecting the unity of the United Kingdom, which may go some way towards rejecting the aspirations of the Scottish nationalists—which is what I am mainly concerned to try to do.
If the Government are really against separatism, why do they not accept the amendment? It only spells out what they are as intent as I am on doing. For my colleagues and I, who are proud to call ourselves Unionists, there can be no doubt of our wholehearted support for the amendment and our wholehearted opposition to the Bill.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): rose—

Mr. Tim Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I have been trying to catch your eye for some time in order to speak on Amendment No. 21, in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and myself, which you have grouped with Amendment No. 16.

The Chairman: Order. That was a valiant attempt, but the hon. Member cannot question the Chair's decision. If a Minister rises and catches the Chair's eye, he is called.

Sir Bernard Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. No one questions your authority, but may I ask whether the Minister's rising will terminate the debate?

The Chairman: That is an entirely hypothetical question which no one but the Minister himself can answer at the moment.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Peter Rees: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. The second amendment in this group is No. 17, in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. I am not aware that anyone has yet been called to speak to that amendment, so it may have occurred to the Chair and the Minister that he will not know the arguments which will be deployed in its support.

Mr. Graham Page: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. We are discussing 23 amendments, and so far only one has been mentioned. I have sought for the last seven hours to catch your eye to speak to about 10 of them. Unless I am prevented from doing so, I intend to carry on trying after the Minister has spoken.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. It will be within your recollection that last night a number of hon. Members who had been in the Chamber for many hours were standing in an attempt to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair when the Lord President rose to reply to the debate. The Chair permitted him to reply and did not subsequently call any of those other hon. Members, of whom I was one. Immediately after he had spoken, the Deputy Chief Whip moved the closure of the debate. It is therefore not merely a matter of wild guesswork;


hon. Members are forewarned and have every reason to suspect that the same will happen again—

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Mendelson: I therefore suggest—

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Mendelson: —that this is a matter—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member must not attempt to influence the Chair in any way in the decision that the Chair may be called upon to make. Mr. John Smith.

Mr. John Smith: rose—

Mr. Mendelson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. Hon. Members who have attended Committee debates, either in Standing Committee or here in the Chamber—many with more experience than I, and I have had some—know that it is right for hon. Members to appeal to the Chair to call every hon. Member who has indicated his wish to speak. We have every right to appeal to you to proceed in that manner.

Mr. John Smith: rose—

Sir Nigel Fisher: Further to the point of order. I am not, of course, seeking to question your decision, Mr. Murton, but I suggest that it is permissible for hon. Members to seek not to defy but to persuade the Chair. Precisely the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) happened last night, when I was not in the Chamber, and also last week. On both occasions, the Deputy Government Chief Whip moved the closure, which was accepted, immediately the Minister had spoken, thus depriving a number of hon. Members of the opportunity of taking part in the debate.
This is, therefore, becoming a common practice on the Bill. I hope that I am not being unduly suspicious, but I suspect that that is the intention of the Deputy Chief Whip tonight. if it happens, that will be the third time running. The House of Commons, in Committeee on a Bill, is entitled to more consideration than that from the Government Front Bench.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: Order. The Chair will make up its mind when the Chair has heard how the Minister has deployed his argument and what effect it has upon the Committee.

Mr. John Smith: rose—

Mr. Nick Budgen: On a point of order—

Mr. Ian Gow: On a point of order—

Mr. Peter Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. May I ask your guidance? How can the Minister deploy any arguments about amendments to which hon. Members have not yet been permitted to speak?

The Chairman: I presume that the Minister will have read the amendments over the course of time.

Mr. John Smith: rose—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Tim Renton: Without wishing to question your ruling, Mr. Murton, may I remind you that you said just now that you presumed that the Minister would have read the amendments? Amendment No. 21, to which I wish to speak, suggests only that the second sentence of the clause be omitted. The Minister cannot reasonably reply to that amendment unless he has heard our arguments for it.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. To save you further points of order, and to give the Minister a fair hearing, would it not be simple for the Government Deputy Chief Whip to give an undertaking that he has no intention of moving the closure?

Mr. Cow: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Is it not the case that where amendments are grouped—in this case there are 23—it is not the custom to call the Minister to reply until there has been an opportunity to discuss all the amendments? In exercising your discretion—

The Chairman: Order. There is no rule to that effect.

Sir Bernard Braine: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. There was


some misunderstanding earlier when I and other hon. Members sought to raise a point of order. We were in no way questioning your right to call the Minister at that stage. It would have been improper for us to do so. But this is no ordinary Bill. It is a constitutional measure of great importance, with far-reaching implications, not merely for Scottish and Welsh Members but for English Members. You have grouped a large number of amendments, Mr. Murton. Only one has been discussed. Therefore, the Minister cannot hope to answer any of the points, because they have not been made. It is not unreasonable to suggest that you indicate that the Minister's being called now will not preclude you from calling hon. Members who have sat here for long hours. Unless an undertaking of this kind is given, this will not be understood in English constituencies.

The Chairman: I am under the impression that I have already given that indication.

Miss Harvie Anderson: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. It may have escaped your notice that among those on the Opposition Benches seeking to catch your eye was at least one Privy Councillor. I am sure that the Chair will observe the conventions of the House of Commons in this case. One of the small courtesies, sometimes resented by other hon. Members, is that a Privy Councillor is given a certain precedence. I hope that in due course the Chair will take that into account.

Mr. Pym: On a point of order. In any consideration that you may give, Mr. Murton, to the fear in hon. Members' minds about the possible early ending of the debate on this amendment, will you bear in mind that this is the first time the whole issue of the government of the United Kingdom as a whole, as well as the Bill's effect on Scotland and Wales, arises? That is why so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are very keen to speak. May I ask you to give full weight to that fundamental aspect of this large group of amendments, some of which have not been spoken to?

The Chairman: I am giving due weight to that point.

Mr. John Smith: We have had, so far, a wide-ranging debate. I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher). He was right to stress the importance of the enormous economic, social, political and cultural value of the United Kingdom. As he rightly pointed out, the Government were committed to that proposition. Anyone who listened to the Second Reading debate would have heard clear affirmation of that commitment. It is profoundly important that we maintain the political and economic unity of the United Kingdom, and I have no doubt that the vast majority of Scots wish to remain full members of the United Kingdom.
Since I have been agreeing with the hon. Member for Surbiton so far, I say to him that there is a danger in paying too much attention to the Members of the Scottish National Party. Too much attention is paid to what they say and to what their motives are supposed to be. A number of hon. Members seem sometimes to place too much emphasis on what the SNP says. It represents a minority point of view in the United Kingdom.

Sir Nigel Fisher: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member so early in his speech, particularly since he has been so gracious to me, but I would put into his mind the area that the reason why some of us do over-emphasise the importance of our colleagues in the Scottish National Party is that they may, certainly under the present system of voting, at some time in the near or immediate future obtain a majority in the Assembly. That would be a dangerous situation. That is why we have to pay a considerable amount of attention to their aims and objectives, which are not the same as ours.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member will understand that I do not want to be tempted into dealing now with a series of amendments which will be discussed later. Again, the hon. Member is displaying a lack of confidence in the wisdom of the Scottish electorate. I do not believe that the Scottish Assembly will be dominated by the SNP. The Scottish electorate will reach sensible conclusions about whom it wishes to see represent it in the Assembly.
Having listened with some care to the speeches today, it seems that the main burden of the criticism of this declaratory clause is that it does not accurately state the position, that it wrongly declares what the Bill says. I reject that criticism. There are two legs to this argument. First, it is said that it is wrong to say that the Bill does not affect the unity of the United Kingdom. As I understand that argument, it turns on the view which hon. Members have of the effect of the legislation. It is a mistake to think that the unity of the United Kingdom depends on having some unity in the policies operated throughout the United Kingdom.
The argument may not be stated in that way but I think that was the underlying view of a number of hon. Members. Some of my hon. Friends, including the hon. Members for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) and Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), pointed out that the unity of the country depends upon a number of things, including the will of the people, social circumstances and the desire to remain united. I utterly reject any criticism that the Bill will affect the unity of the kingdom.

Mr. Raison: Surely the argument which has come through repeatedly is that this is a mechanism for creating friction. It is that which will damage the unity of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Smith: I was about to come to just that point. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said that the Bill was a recipe for conflict. In any system of government there is bound to be conflict. We are not unused to the situation in which there is conflict between two Houses in a bicameral legislature such as ours. What I maintain is that the provisions of the Bill deal with points of conflict between the Assemblies—to which substantial power is to be devolved—and the United Kingdom Parliament.
12.30 a.m.
The provisions in the Bill are sensible and, given reasonable good will—

Mr. Dalyell: What good will? Maximum ill will by the SNP.

Mr. Smith: —and the desire to make the system work, which is fundamental to any constitutional arrangement and cannot be legislated for, it has a reason-

able and, I suggest, high chance of success.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: My hon. Friend draws an analogy between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I suggest that he could draw an analogy between the House of Commons and a local authority. The analogy would be fairly drawn about the point of conflict if it were not for the fact that the institutions to be established under these provisions are national Assemblies. They will not be prepared to accept the ultimate supremacy of the House of Commons as the House of Lords and local authorities must both by precedent and by law. Those bodies, because they ostensibly embody a national determination and will, if they have to succumb to the supremacy of Parliament, will do so with great resentment and with the purpose of further expanding their independence.

Mr. Smith: I was not drawing an analogy. I made a passing reference to another situation. I do not want to develop full-blown analogies for different situations. There are differences in the situations described by my hon. Friend.
I do not believe that the fears of conflict predicted by the hon. Member for Aylesbury and some of his hon. Friends will be realised. For example, the Welsh Assembly will not have legislative competence. Therefore, the legislative clash is removed.

Mr. Kinnock: That is the conflict. The Welsh TUC wants it to have legislative powers.

Mr. Smith: I was good enough to give way to my hon. Friend early in my speech. If he will refrain from interrupting me from a sedentary position, we might make some progress.
The main constitutional provisions are those which affect this legislative provision. The fact is that legislative power is given to the Scottish Assembly. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I concentrate on that aspect. I think that was what they had in mind when they referred to recipes for conflict.
I do not want to look too far ahead to discussions on override or definition of what is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Assembly, matters of determination by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and other aspects.


I felt that many critics were not fair. In particular, the hon. Member for Aylesbury was not wholly fair in his description of these provisions.
For example, one matter which might be said to be a recipe for conflict would be the Scottish Assembly seeking to extend its powers and clashing with this Parliament. That matter is proposed to be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Committee will recall that that represented a change from what the Government first proposed in the November White Paper. Having listened to the debate on the White Paper—the Government received a great deal of advice from the House of Commons—they thought it wise to have a judicial mechanism for the determination of the legislative competency of Bills coming, from the Scottish Assembly. I regard that as an intelligent and reasonable way of dealing with possible conflict in any system of government where power is to be shared.

Mr. Charles Morrison: What the Minister said is likely to be correct with regard to the legal interpretation of a Bill. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council may legally be able to settle the type of conflict to which the hon. Gentleman referred. But we are concerned about political pressure, not the legal position. Whatever the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council may decide will have no effect on the political conflict. Many of us believe that the political conflict will be the trouble in future.

Mr. George Cunningham: That is exactly what happened in Canada.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) should reflect on what he has said. He said that the legal position would have no effect on the political situation. That is an exaggeration, because if there is a situation in which the United Kingdom Government feel that the Assembly is exceeding its powers as defined in the Bill, they can refer the matter to the Judicial Committee. That would be that and the Assembly measure would not go forward for Royal Assent.

Mr. Graham Page: I gather that the Minister is referring to Clause 20. The Judicial Committee only decides when the exercise of power of the Scottish Assembly is within the powers in the Bill, but throughout the Bill there are dual powers. How can one have dual powers and unity?

Mr. Smith: That is the danger of going into detail. [Interruption.] I am not prepared to go into detail on the point. If the United Kingdom Government feel that they are exceeding their powers they will refer the matter. We will go into the details of particular cases.
Hon. Members have referred to other Clauses, and I welcome that they are looking so far ahead. But perhaps it is not helpful to go into detailed consideration of matters which will be considered later.
I must stress the point about the unity of the United Kingdom. We have different views as to the political effect of devolution. Many hon. Members have stated that devolution will lead to the dismemberment of the United Kingdom, but there exists an element of judgment about that. One must take into account the attitudes and aspirations of the Scottish and Welsh peoples and those of other parts of the United Kingdom.
My strong conviction is that the proposals allowing within the framework of the United Kingdom the possibility of different decisions and priorities in different parts of the United Kingdom will strengthen and underline our unity. Our unity does not have to depend on enforced conformity from the centre. It can rest on recognising the diversity within our system. Such diversity already exists in the administrative sense in that we have territorial Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales. I know that political control remains at Westminster but Governments of different complexions have decided that we should maintain a system of territorial administration for Scotland and Wales. That marks them out as different from other parts. For example in Scotland we have a separate legal system. I am a Scots lawyer unable to practise in England. I do not grumble about that since English lawyers cannot practise in Scotland. We also have a different educational tradition and many other differences.
I see that the hon. Member for Aylesbury shakes his head. Throughout the debate I have felt that he has not understood the strong attitudes in Scotland. He will be unable to understand them unless he looks at them more carefully. To shake one's head about the value of national institutions and the respect in which they are held by people of all political opinions is to show a lack of sensitivity and imagination.
We must approach the re-fashioning of our constitution not only with a proper clinical dissection of its provisions but with some political imagination. The Conservative Party has committed itself to some form of legislative devolution for Scotland. Many of the hon. Members who have been attacking the Bill do not share the Conservative Party's view. The hon. Member for Surbiton was frank enough to spell out clearly, only a few inches from his own Front Bench, the differences between his view and that of the Conservative Party.

Sir David Renton: The hon. Gentleman has used the expression "legislative devolution". I think that he will agree, on reflection, that that is not the correct expression to use. The expression "legislative devolution" was used by the Kilbrandon Commission in the sense of complete executive devolution and full legislative powers for a devolved Assembly, whereas all that the Conservative Party has suggested is that a Scottish Assembly should have some legislative opportunity, delegated ad hoc by the House of Commons.

Mr. Smith: I do not want to be difficult about this matter. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that there is a little difficulty on the Government side of the Committee in knowing precisely what it is that is proposed. I take his description of that. It follows very closely views expressed by him when he was a member of the Royal Commission on the Constitution. Indeed, I think that his recommendations in the report have a close connection with what appears to be the official policy of the Conservative Party.
However, it must be faced that if one gives legislative power to a subordinate Assembly, there is the possibility of clash between that Assembly and Westminster. I make no secret of that. I think that

it would happen under Conservative proposals as well, because, as I understand the position, the Conservative proposals would mean that Bills could be initiated in the Assembly that they would create and then come to the House of Commons for it to decide whether they should be given a Third Reading. There is there, perhaps, a clash of a rather more unfortunate kind than that proposed in the Bill.
I do not mind arguing the toss with hon. Members who say that they are against devolution in principle and so we should not have it at all, and that that is the easiest way to get rid of problems of conflict, because if we do not have the scheme we shall have no conflict. I am a little more reluctant to take it from Conservative Front Bench Members, who advertise themselves in Scotland and Wales as members of a party that believes in devolution. Therefore, I take with more reluctance criticism directed at me from the Opposition Front Bench.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On the question of possible clashes in the future, does the Minister agree that we possibly have a parallel in the relationship of a member State to the EEC and the very many clashes between every member State and the EEC constitutionally? In every plenary session that I have attended there have been such clashes. Those on the Opposition side of the Committee—though not my Bench—were mostly in favour of entering the EEC and creating the very situation in which there have been such clashes, but they still seem to want to go on facing the clashes and seeing what comes out of it at the end.

Mr. Smith: With respect, that is quite a different situation, in which nation States in the EEC perhaps disagree with each other from time to time. We are talking about the provisions in the Bill and a proposal that this Parliament should devolve powers to subordinate Assemblies. It is important to stress that we do not devolve sovereignty; we devolve powers. That is at the core of the constitutional theory of devolution, and it distinguishes it from federalism.

Mr. Powell: Surely the hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that in the 1972 Act the Conservative Party removed, for the purposes of the EEC, the supreme


legislative authority of the House of Commons. That is how the Conservative Party removed the potential clash.

Mr. Smith: In this Bill we are not attempting to remove the supremacy of Parliament. The hon. Lady will no doubt reflect on what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
I think that the reason why I can say with confidence that this declaration of principle is a correct statement of the position is that we are not devolving sovereignty. It would be untrue and inaccurate to put such a declaratory principle in the Bill if we were devolving sovereignty. But we are not doing that. The classic difference in the federal system is the devolution of sovereignty, with the province or States, or whatever they are called, having sovereignty and rights in relation to the central body, the federal unit. That is an important difference. That is why I suggest that the Government are correct in stating that the supremacy of Parliament will be retained.
I listened to what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said about how a Parliament has to be capable of exercising its powers to ensure that it successfully superintends the activities of the Executive. It is an ongoing job. I wonder whether we do it in the House of Commons as we should. Is the Executive fully scrutinised? Is it sometimes not the case because Parliament has too much to do?
12.45 a.m.
One argument that strongly supports devolution is that the process will lessen the burden on Parliament. We recently discussed the Licensing (Scotland) Bill, which made changes in licensing laws. The Committee began its deliberations at 10 o'clock at night and continued until 6 o'clock in the morning. That was an absurd way for the House of Commons to deal with the matter.
Opposition Members may say that that arose because of the Government's crowded business. They may say that the Government should have dropped some other piece of legislation, but we know that every Government find themselves in similar positions. I was in Opposition from 1970 to 1974, and we ran into the same problems in that period when the Conservative Government had

an overcrowded calendar. This is because the whole business of government is now so complex.
It might be said that the Bill will make government more complex, but why should Parliament be seeking to retain powers that could easily be devolved elsewhere? We could be deciding Scottish licensing laws in the Scottish Assembly. I do not believe that it is a matter of great interest to Members representing English constituencies. I do not believe that they are interested in Scottish licensing provisions.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury referred to Clause 18(2). I take up the point because the hon. Gentleman has been criticising me and I have not had an opportunity of answering. The clause is qualified by Clause 19(1). The capacity of the Scottish Assembly to legislate and to change Acts of Parliament is limited to the area of devolution. I think that that is understood on all hands. That is the important point for the Committee to bear in mind.
The hon. Gentleman asked what would happen if the Scottish Assembly amended a measure enacted by the United Kingdom Parliament. He described that as a leap-frogging situation. If it so wished, the House of Commons could insert in a Bill the provision that the measure should not be amended by the Assembly. However, I think it is highly unlikely that that clash would take place. The House of Commons having devolved powers in respect of health, education and housing to the Scottish Assembly—especially to Scotland, where there will be the legislative capacity of the Assembly—it is highly unlikely that it would seek to legislate in those areas. Call it a convention of the constitution or whatever, but no Government would normally propose legislation to the House of Commons in those spheres.

Mr. Brittan: Is the hon. Gentleman not saying that the Bill permits all such conflict between the two assemblies but that it may yet be possible for Parliament in some future Bill to insert a provision that will prevent the conflict? If that is so, the objection to the Bill will remain.

Mr. Smith: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. I was addressing myself to what happens when the kissing


has to stop, as it were—when the Assembly passes one thing and it is amended by the United Kingdom Parliament. If it so wishes, the House of Commons can pass a piece of legislation that is not to be amended by the Assembly. It could put that provision into the Bill. That would mean that the Assembly would not be able to operate Clause 18(2).

Mr. Brittan: I intervene for a second time because the hon. Gentleman had difficulty in understanding the first intervention on this issue. I am saying that if that procedure were followed it would rectify a defect in the Bill to which we are pointing. Until that defect is rectified the possibility of conflict stands. The fact that it may be possible in some subsequent legislation to remove it is neither here nor there.

Mr. Smith: I do not think the hon. Gentleman understood what I said. We may be in a state of mutual incomprehension about the matter, but if he examines Hansard I am sure that he will find substance in what I said.
The clause has been criticised because it is said to be inaccurate. I believe that the clause not only will not diminish the unity of the United Kingdom but will enhance it. To some extent it is a matter for argument. It is also a matter for judgment, political perception and political imagination.
Probably we shall not easily be able to reach agreement on these matters in Committee, but that is the defence I put forward for their inclusion in the clause. I regard it as a respectable defence because it is based on individual judgment and goes to the heart of the Bill. I believe that the Government were justified in putting such a declaration in Clause 1.
It was also said that it was wrong for us to refer in the clause to the fact that the supremacy of Parliament remains. I do not follow that argument, because the supremacy of Parliament does remain.
The right hon. Member for Down, South said that one can have sovereignty but that one must continually exercise it. He spoke of the long period of time when the House of Commons chose not to interest itself in the affairs of Northern

Ireland. But there can be no question about the supremacy of the House of Commons, as was vividly demonstrated by the fact that this Parliament abolished the Stormont regime. The supremacy was real enough then, and nobody suggested that the House of Commons did not have the right to do that.
I hope that what will happen as a result of the new constitutional provisions is that we shall be able to handle conflicts sensibly. There necessarily will be conflicts in any lively political system.
People will say that our arrangements are either too strict or too lax. It is hard to say whether one has constitutional arrangements right because one has to try to anticipate people's political and social behaviour and to foresee political situations. Therefore, it would be wrong for the Government to claim that these arrangements were perfect. I am sure that the Committee will be able to suggest improvements as we go through. We shall have to weigh the balance of advantage and disadvantage. It is important to get a spirit of co-operation and ensure that our mechanisms work as well as people of good will can make them work.
This debate has emphasised that the supremacy of Parliament is a responsibility that cannot be challenged, and we are not misleading the Committee when we put it in the Bill as a declaration of principle.

Mr. George Gardiner: The Minister will be aware that a number of speakers have argued that the unity of the United Kingdom will be threatened not necessarily by devolution but by a substantial measure of devolution not accompanied by some change of representation in the House of Commons. Will he address his mind to that point?

Mr. Smith: I have listened carefully to what has been said. Although hon. Members have dwelt on that point, I am not clear what is being proposed. Some people say that there is a difficulty about representation and that we should not proceed with devolution at all. I am sure that the Committee is with me when I say that the House of Commons remains effectively the domestic legislature for England as well as the United Kingdom Parliament.
I am not clear what is being said by the critics about Wales. It is said that there should be an in-and-out provision for Wales. That could hardly apply because the House of Commons remains the legislative power.
Some people say that there should be a reduction in the representation from Scotland. I am not clear about the situation as it affects Wales because I am not sure whether it is said that there should be a reduction in the representation proposed there. There are obviously two camps, and I am not clear what is being put to the Government. Is it that we ought to have an in-and-out clause? There are obvious difficulties about that. Gladstone found that out in respect of the 1893 Irish Home Rule Bill. He proposed an in-and-out clause but was persuaded to drop it by the House of Commons.
I have been listening carefully to what hon. Gentlemen have said but I am not clear what is being proposed.

Mr. Raison: The problem is that the Minister will be allowed to vote about my constituents' activities but I shall not be allowed to vote about his. That is one of the fundamental objections to the whole scheme and is one of the reasons why it cannot work.

Mr. Smith: In that case the hon. Gentleman does not agree with those who argue for a reduced representation of Scottish Members at Westminster. But many of his colleagues do. Presumably, in a devolution situation he would propose that there should be an in-and-out clause that Scottish Members were not able to vote.
I am trying to find the difference between destructive criticism and people trying to find a constructive answer to the problem. It seems that the hon. Gentleman falls into the first category. No doubt we shall return to this subject later on.
Several hon. Members opposite made remarks about political gerrymandering. It is said that the Labour Party gains most of its strength from Scotland and Wales. I would remind the Committee that it is relatively recently that the Labour Party won that proportion of seats in Scotland. As hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative Front Bench are

aware, in 1951 we had 35 Conservative Members, 35 Labour Members and one Liberal. In 1955 the Conservatives had a majority of seats in Scotland—36 compared with 34 Labour and one Liberal.
The electoral success of the Scottish National Party has hit the Conservative Party in some of the rural areas so that now the Conservative Party is down to the smallest representation in Scotland it has ever had in the House of Commons. I cannot imagine that its ambition is to leave the matter like that. I am sure that it hopes to win more seats in future. That is probably why we do not hear a great deal about a reduction in representation from the Conservative Front Bench. I can understand why.

Mr. Henderson: That is one of the most crucial points in the consideration of the whole Bill. I tabled Amendment No. 474, which, for various reasons, was not selected by the Chair. I intend to table that amendment in another form later. Most Scottish Members would recognise that it is quite inequitable and intolerable that when Scotland is to have powers to deal with matters like housing, roads and education, Scottish Members in this House should arrogate to themselves the power to tell English Members how they should run their roads, houses and education. Can the Minister give an indication whether the Government will be responsive and sympathetic to this view so that we can have general agreement that this is the way in which we ought to proceed?

Mr. Smith: I regret having given way to the hon. Gentleman, not because of the content of what he said but because of the time he took to say it. He knows perfectly well that it is difficult for me to comment about an amendment that has not been selected or to consider an amendment that has not yet been put down for consideration. I have enough to do at the moment without casting my eye on those possibilities.
The intervention underlines the unholy alliance between nationalists and ultra-Unionists in the House of Commons. One feeds off the other. Whenever the ultra-Unionists are stuck, they point to the SNP and say "Listen to what they say". That leaves of lot of moderate men in the middle who want the Union to be


maintained but not on strict lines of conformity and uniformity. We want to allow divergences in Scotland and Wales while retaining the unity of the United Kingdom.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Brittan: Does the Minister of State agree that a proposal of the kind put forward raises the problem of representation of Scottish and Welsh Members in the House of Commons and the role they are allowed to play? If the Government are putting forward these carefully considered proposals, it is incumbent upon them to produce a solution to that problem. Does the Minister agree that they have not done so?

Mr. Smith: The Government have put forward proposals that have been criticised. We propose to retain the 71 Scottish Members because of the important matters that will be decided for their constituents, as for others, by the House of Commons—taxation, economic policy, employment policy, energy, foreign affairs, trade and defence. That proposal has come under criticism. I was pointing out to the critics that there were two strands of thought. One was the reduction in the number of Scottish Members, which is not a logical proposition in the sense of the logical proposition put forward by the hon. Member for Aylesbury. There are difficulties in carrying out his logical proposition. It has been discussed. It was discussed endlessly during the passage of the Irish Home Rule Bills, particularly the 1893 Bill, when the House of Commons knocked it out. There may be no neat and entirely tidy logical solution. We must try to find the best proposition we can.

Sir Bernard Braine: The Minister is consistently evading the point repeatedly made that there is already an inequity in the representation in the House of Commons. On average, English Members represent more electors than do Welsh or Scottish Members, and Northern Irish electors are under-represented. An already unsatisfactory state of affairs will be compounded by the proposals in the Bill. Will the Minister address himself to that objection?

Mr. Smith: That raises the question of representation at Westminster in the light of existing legislation. The hon.

Gentleman speaks of the supposed inequity of there being smaller constituencies. The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) represents a small constituency, and no one objects to that. There are constituencies in Scotland with 90,000 electors and with a much higher number. The House of Commons has kept that difference since 1918. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) is not dealing with the question of Scottish Members voting on English matters. If the number of Scottish Members is reduced, those who are here will still vote on English matters.
Several amendments suggest that rules of construction should be imported into the declaratory principle. That is implied by Amendment No. 16 and several others. I ask the House not to accept the amendments on the basis that the clause is no more nor less than a declaration of principle. The nearest parallels are those to which the right hon. Member for Down, South referred in previous Northern Ireland legislation, and there is a similar declaratory principle in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. If we want to give a construction to the courts we should do so in the context of the clauses themselves, not at the beginning of the Bill. It would be unwise to import rules of construction at this stage.

Mr. Peter Rees: Is the Minister actually saying, from his own legal experience, that the courts are not to consider the subsequent provisions in the light of Clause 1, and that this clause is mere hot air, and just a declaration?

Mr. Smith: I have only limited legal experience, but I do not think that it is wise to import a rule of construction here. This is a declaratory statement—no less and no more. I have attempted to answer all the points put to me. I hope that we can now make some progress.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Chairman, in his wisdom, said that he was quite confident that the Minister would reply to all the points in the amendments selected. When one of my hon. Friends asked, on a point of order, how the Minister would do that when the arguments had not been put forward because the Minister was called before my hon. Friends, you, Mr.


Murton, said that you were confident that he would be able to reply because he had read the amendments.
I draw attention to the fact that an amendment in my name and those of others deals with a point of considerable importance—the sovereignty of the Monarch in Parliament. All of us, whether we are for or against the Bill, will agree that the position of the Monarch is of some importance. At no point in the Minister's speech did he in any way touch on the question of the sovereignty of the Monarch in Parliament.
Although, Mr. Murton, you foreshadowed the prospect of the Minister dealing with the amendments selected. even though he had not heard the arguments, the reality is that he has not touched on some of them at all.

The Chairman: Order. First of all, the Chair did not use the word "confident"—it used the word "presume". Secondly, I suggest that the Minister has not yet finished his speech.

Mr. Griffiths: I understood that he had. I did not think I was intervening in his speech.

Mr. John Smith: I had finished.

The Chairman: I apologise. I thought the Minister had given way to the hon. Member. I shall now proceed to call other hon. Members.

Mr. Graham Page: The Minister need not have risen at all—he has not satisfied the House on any of the subjects raised, and he has only increased the fears and anxieties which hon. Members have expressed in their speeches on this group of amendments. There have been many powerful speeches covering the fundamentals of the Bill, and the political background.
This clause immediately throws up clearly the contradictions, the anomalies, and the constitutional stupidities of the whole Bill. I hope that I am not being pedantic if I recall that we are debating 23 amendments to the second sentence of the first clause of the Bill. The question is whether we can, by these amendments, make some sense of this sentence. The speeches we have heard have already shown abundantly clearly that the sentence succeeds in doing two things. It

makes an expression of a pious hope and at the same time a declaration of an untruth. It is immensely successful in doing those two things at once.
I want it to be a real hope and a real truth. I do not want this Bill to affect the unity of the United Kingdom. I am with the Government in that phrase. I do not want it to affect the supreme authority of Parliament. But how can it be said that the Bill does not affect that unity or that authority. The Bill sets up a dual competency in many fields, in both government and legislation, and there can no longer be any unity where this dual control exists.
It is foolish to talk about that in Clause 1 when it is contradicted throughout the Bill. It will, of course, affect the unity of the United Kingdom and the authority of Parliament to make laws for parts of the United Kingdom. Hon Members have not yet dealt with that aspect of the clause concerning the making of laws for any part of the United Kingdom. We are told that the Bill is not to affect that, but throughout the Bill powers to make laws for parts of the United Kingdom are taken away from the Parliament at Westminster. We have only to look at Clause 18(2) or Clause 21 (2) and (8). The Bill gives members of the Scottish Executive all the powers that a Minister of the Crown is given by any enactment, and those members of the Executive are not responsible to Parliament at Westminster.
How can we say that there is unity in the United Kingdom after that? Clause 44 has been referred to as well. I will not go into detail on that. But let us consider the effect of the second sentence in Clause 1. Is every action under the Bill when it becomes a statute to be decided by that sentence? If not, what is the aim of the sentence? It cannot be merely declaratory. If all action and conduct under the Bill when it becomes law is to be decided by this declaratory clause it is just a complete invitation to litigation. If it is intended that it should be declaratory, and if we are to test every action under the Bill by turning to this phrase, that must affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supremacy of Parliament. This needs spelling out a lot more clearly than it has been by the few words in Clause 1.
This Parliament can continue to legislate for Scotland and Wales. We do not need Clause 1 to tell us that. If any action taken under the Bill must not affect the unity of the United Kingdom, let us try to spell it out a little better. That is what I have endeavoured to do in a number of amendments. The Minister did not have the courtesy to deal with them in answering the debate. I do not wonder. He rose to reply before hearing anything about the amendments.
Let us consider Amendment No. 22. It corrects the word in that phrase to provide that the provisions "shall not", as opposed to "do not", affect unity. If that phrase is to have any meaning and is not to be merely declaratory the tense must be changed. We then come to Amendment No. 25, which seeks to qualify the word "affect" by making the clause read
affect adversely nor detract from, harm or weaken the unity of the United Kingdom".
I do not mind it if it affects the unity of the United Kingdom by improving our unity. That must be acceptable to the Minister. But what the Minister really meant when drafting the clause was that it should not affect the unity of the United Kingdom adversely. If that is so, the Government should accept Amendment No. 25.
1.15 a.m.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) raised the point about the supreme authority of Parliament. In Amendment No. 29 we have endeavoured to expand that to the "supreme authority, sovereignty and competence" of Parliament. Is that not acceptable to the Government? Is that not a better explanation of what is intended by this phrase in the second sentence of Clause 1?
As to the competency of Parliament, I refer to Amendment No. 31, which asserts Parliament's right to:
govern and legislate for and to enforce the law in
any part of the United Kingdom. What is the good of saying that the Parliament at Westminster has the power to make laws if it does not have the power to enforce them? What will happen when the Westminster Government makes a new law for Scotland? Will it have the power to enforce that law? If it has, we

must say so in the clause and spell it out.
It is said that the Government can legislate for and enforce law in the United Kingdom or any part of it. There is some qualification of that phrase in Amendment No. 36, which says:
nor shall they alter the prerogatives, rights, duties, privileges and conventions of the Crown as the constitutional monarchy of the United Kingdom".
Surely the Government accepts that and would not object to it being spelt out in the clause if that is what is intended.
I go on to Amendment No. 36, which inserts:
or the obligations undertaken by treaty or Act of Parliament whereby the United Kingdom is bound to act or refrain from acting in certain ways".
Are we not going to say that this Parliament is supreme in the matter of treaties with other countries?
I finally refer to Amendment No. 37:
nor shall any provision of the Act be used to alter the process whereby laws are made for the United Kingdom.
If this significant sentence in Clause 1 is to have any effect at all this must be spelt out clearly. In spelling it out I have convinced myself that the whole thing is purposeless.
If all the amendments are accepted, it is clear that we should add another amendment to the Bill to leave out everything from page 1, line 11 to page 166, line 8. That would remove the whole of the rest of the Bill. If one spells out the significant sentence of Clause 1, it makes the whole of the rest of the Bill nonsense. We should have to start all over again.
The Minister has not explained the real intentions of the clause to the Committee. He has tried to answer some of the points that were made in debate and that went far beyond the amendment. I do not mean that the Chair should have called us to order, but the Minister has not answered the real question. What is the aim of this sentence and what effect will it have on the rest of the Bill? If the sentence is spelt out fully the rest of the Bill is a complete contradiction.

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) in her attempt to help the Bill along and to attack the Opposition—which I would normally regard as laudable—was


entering on dangerous territory in respect of the Lord President. She tried to draw an analogy between what is attempted in the Bill and what was done by the previous Tory Government about EEC legislation. If she were to succeed in establishing that analogy she would be bound to lose the Lord President's support for the legislation. As he is the chief supporter of the legislation in the Cabinet, that would be fatal. She ought to be more careful in future when picking her ground from which to advance attacks on the Opposition.
The Opposition are unreasonable to expect the Government to accept all these amendments. That cannot be expected of any Government, but I do not see why the Govrenment should not accept some of the chief amendments in the group. Judging by the intentions expressed on Second Reading and many subsequent occasions—and eloquently repeated by the Minister of State tonight —it should be possible for the Government to accept some amendments.
I hope that the Minister will change his mind so that we may vote on some amendments and reaffirm, with the support of all parties except the SNP and Plaid Cymru, our commitment to the unity of the United Kingdom. It would be politically useful to isolate the nationalists. They would have to propose the amendments because they are dedicated to the break-up of the United Kingdom and have said so frankly and honestly.
One of the reasons for my suspicion of the legislation is that it has been welcomed by the nationalist parties. When the result of the Second Reading Division was announced, the only hon. Members who cheered and waved Order Papers were those on the SNP Bench and one or two Plaid Cymru Members. They said in radio interviews on the following morning that they see the Bill as a stepping stone to a separate Scotland.
I did not agree with the speech of the Minister of State, but I do not join in the niggling criticisms and accusations that he did not answer every amendment—most of which have not been discussed. The Minister cannot be expected in winding up a four- or five-hour debate to refer to amendments which have not even

been pressed upon the Government. That criticism is unreaonable and unfair.
However, my hon. Friend did not deal with the key political argument. He said perfunctorily at the end of his speech that he invited the House not to accept the amendments, but he gave no political reasons for not accepting some of the chief amendments. That must be done in a further reply from the Government Front Bench when other hon. Members have spoken.
There is a danger to the unity of the United Kingdom if the Bill is passed, but not enough mention has been made—though this will be corrected in the coming months—of the economic unity of the United Kingdom which is bound to be a bone of contention as soon as the Assemblies get to work. This is strictly relevant to what we are discussing and to the merits of the amendments.
I am sure that the Minister of State will have heard the excellent BBC broadcast which gave extracts of the debate in which the unity of the United Kingdom was discussed. Not all those extracts were helpful to my case, but the key argument in those early days was the economic argument.
I fear that the people of Scotland may be misled into accepting policies in the new Assembly which will threaten the economic advantages they derive from unity. Ministers have been led into a false position by their own legislation. I understand how this can happen: a Cabinet which has committed most of a parliamentary Session to what it regards as a major reforming piece of legislation cannot be expected to make speeches every week warning people of the dangers of the legislation. But that is what should be done, because the dangers are real.
I do not take kindly to detailed discussion of particular paragraphs. I agree with the Government that the details of a political situation four or five years hence cannot be foreseen. A far more serious danger is that the economic demands urged on the Assembly will mislead many people into believing that it is the limitation of the Assembly's powers which is responsible for any shortcomings of the Scottish economy.
The Government keep saying that this is the only way to avoid the worst, that without the Bill there will be a wave of


nationalist sentiment. That is wrongheaded. If we become convinced that a certain political commitment is wrong we have a duty to tell the people the truth, whatever the political price.

Mr. Dalyell: Might not the situation be much worse? The slogan being put around is not "We want 150 Assemblymen" but "It's our oil". That makes my hon. Friend's case.

Mr. Mendelson: When it comes to the supremacy of Parliament and the representation of Scottish Members, it is not enough for the Minister of State, in an otherwise convincing speech, to pick on one hon. Member who shook his head as a pretext for blustering that other hon. Members knew less than he about the special advantages of different Scottish law and other differences. The Committee is full of hon. Members who have the greatest respect for these features which mean so much to the people of Scotland, but that is not the same as saying that we need this political development. Nor does it mean that a political Assembly is needed to control appointments to certain supervisory bodies in Wales, such as the Arts Council and the BBC. Such suggestions come from people who have been frustrated over the years because they do not like the appointments. Democratic machinery for change in that respect can be introduced without an entirely new political Assembly. Those are absurd reasons for the massive changes involved in the Bill. Far more powerful reasons are need for this historic change and the risks involved.
1.30 a.m.
There remains the argument about the supremacy of Parliament. There is no analogy with the Common Market. Those who support the Common Market, as I do not, will not agree when I say that the Common Market dictates to this Parliament what we shall do in our domestic legislation. What we are discussing has dangers of its own, and we have seen some of them today. We are beginning a debate about breaking up the United Kingdom Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State and other members of the Government can reject them as often as they like, but we shall repeat again and again, not only here but throughout the country, our arguments about the alleged over-

representation of Scotland at Westminster. I welcome Scottish representation in Parliament. It enriches the life of Parliament. I have never objected to it, and I do not want it changed. My view has nothing to do with fear of changing party majorities in the House. But I am convinced that after two or three years, if the Bill is passed, the demand for a reduction of Scottish representation will become irresponsible, whether a Conservative or Labour Government are in power.
We are seeing some strange bedfellows. An SNP Member suggested that Scottish Members should have no right to talk about certain aspects of the business of the United Kingdom Parliament—a disastrous suggestion. My hon. Friend the Minister can say as often as he likes that he rejects it, but it is the kind of proposal we can expect from the SNP. The more it can be argued that Scottish Members should have no right to take a full part in United Kingdom legislation, the more they will argue that the House has no right to interfere in the legislation of the Scottish Assembly. Every proposal is designed to break up the United Kingdom and lead to its destruction.
There is no reason why the Government cannot reasonably say that they share some of the fears and accept some of the amendments.

Mr. Peter Rees: Since, although I start from a different premise I arrive at somewhat similar conclusions as the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), I hope that he will forgive me if I do not devote any part of my intervention to what he has said. In view of the lateness of the hour I propose to speak to Amendment No. 17 standing in my name and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Although it may come as a surprise to the Government Front Bench, I tabled this amendment in the hope that it might possibly assist the Government in their consideration of the Bill. I appreciate that the architect—dare I call him the "Poulson" of this Bill?—is the Lord President. We know that the Lord President is somewhat careless of the legal niceties of legislation, indeed of the customs, conventions and Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Nevertheless, he is supported by more exact right hon.
and hon. Friends, including the Lord Advocate, whom we saw sitting demurely on the Front Bench from time to time. Alas, his services have not been called on. I hope later to uncover a problem on which he might care to give advice to the Committee. There is also the Minister of State, who, in an unguarded moment—and I must confess to have been ignorant of his professional background —said that he was a lawyer.

Mr. Powell: A Scots lawyer.

Mr. Rees: Indeed. My right hon. Friend is right to correct me. Who am I to tread into the delicate sphere of Scots law, about which I know very little?
I approached this Bill on the basis that every line, clause, comma and word would have to be given force and effect by the courts which will be called upon to construe it. I considered that Clause 1 was of some importance it stated the general principles of the Bill, which should govern the courts when construing it. I know that the Lord President is inclined to attribute trigger-happy fingers to the judiciary. They do their best with difficult legislation, and the legislation introduced by this Government has been of particular complexity and badly thought out. We have been given little time to debate the profundities of its legislation, or lack of them. On this occasion I thought that the Lord President, with the good advice of those sitting beside him, had turned over a new legislative leaf and we were to have a carefully constructed Bill, that we were to start with Clause 1 which was to dominate the Bill and govern the construction of everything that followed.
But because—and I hope that the Committee will not think me arrogant—I detected certain imperfections in the drafting to Clause 1 I table an amendment which might have tidied up these imperfections. Now we are told by the Minister of State that, far from governing the rest of the Bill, the clause is no more than an exercise in political rhetoric.

Mr. Budgen: A preliminary puff.

Mr. Rees: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, in inheriting a distinguished seat, has also inherited the facility with words which his distinguished predecessor possessed. It now turns out that this

clause is a preliminary puff—what I, perhaps more coarsely, would describe as legislative hot air. Worse than that, as others have demonstrated, it is in part a glimpse of the obvious when it states that:
The following provisions of this Act make changes in the government of Scotland and Wales are parts of the United Kingdom.
Perhaps in deference to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), the clause might have talked about governance of Great Britain" rather than "government". Let us not cavil at small details at this hour. That is a glimpse of the obvious which I venture to suggest to the Lord President it was unnecessary to put into the Bill. The clause goes on to state what is palpably untrue:
They do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State now tells us that this is a flight of political imagination. With suitable modesty, he is not prepared to be dogmatic on this point. I say to the Minister that the balance of the argument has been all one way. There have been one or two paltry interventions from Members of the SNP, endeavouring to provide a little ballast for the rather insubstantial arguments of the Minister of State. But both from the Benches behind him and from those in front of him the argument has been incontestable.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for his reference to the SNP, although he might have found a facility with words to equal that of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and have spoken of us in a more kindly light. I deny that my intervention was in any way a means of providing ballast for the Minister of State's argument. So strong was my "ballast" that it shot the Minister down, forcing him to resume his seat prematurely.

Mr. Rees: I hope that there will be other occasions when I can refer to the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends in more complimentary terms. If the Chair were to select the amendment to scale down Scottish representation in the House of Commons, I might find a measure of common ground with the hon. Gentleman. With profound respect, dare I suggest that I hope that there will be an opportunity to debate


more sensibly, and at greater length than the Minister of State seems to be prepared to concede, that important principle which is central to the issues in the Bill.
The final proposition in this preliminary puff is that
They do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it.
There I detected a gleam of constitutional sense—a certain feeling for the constitutional history of this country. Therefore, I turned to the Act of Union.
It surprises me beyond measure that no Government spokesman so far has thought fit to refer to the constitutional foundations of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. On this occasion, because I have no solid antiquarian basis, I do not propose to refer to the Treaty of Rhuddlan—I do not see any representatives of Plaid Cymru—which incorported parts of the Principality into England. I doubt whether the Library of the House of Commons would be able to turn up that treaty, but it may be that in our debates we shall have to examine its articles.
In view of the lateness of the hour, I prefer to turn to the Act of Union, because there I find a solid legislative substratum for our debate.
The Lord President of the Council, acute parliamentarian though he is, nurtures the belief—I believe it to be unfounded—that the House of Commons is capable of overturning and amending all previous Acts. I believe that therein lies an error. On another occasion, with the benevolent connivance of the Chair, I should like to debate how far we are governed by the conventions of the constitution which up to now have been considered to be of binding effect on and of great advantage to this country.
I hope that the Lord President of the Council, who is so cavalier about these matters, may be coaxed to his feet more often in our debates, because we miss his honeyed tone, his acute perception and his all-sweeping glance at the judiciary and the legislative process. We wish to hear more of his views on how judges should construe these matters—whether they

should be trigger-happy or slow to anger. Indeed, there may be other opportunities to review the activities of the Attorney-General. But there I stray slightly out of order. In this instance I shall confine myself rigorously, under your baleful eye, Mr. Fitch, to the provisions of the Act of Union and the Bill before us.
Were the Act of Union a simple matter of domestic legislation enacted by the United Kingdom Parliament subsequent to 1707, I might be in difficulty in suggesting that we were disabled from enacting the provisions of this Bill. I am not being dogmatic in what I am putting to the Committee. I hope that we shall have the benefit of advice from the Lord Advocate and perhaps from that great legal luminary the Attorney-General, if he can shake himself free from the toils of the Court of Appeal.
It will not have escaped the attention of the Committee that the Act of Union was the ratificatory measure of articles negotiated by the commissioners of two independent sovereign States. That gives it a quality quite separate and distinct from any of the measures that this Parliament or even the Parliament of 1970, with respect to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), ever had to debate or consider. This was the Act to ratify the fruit of negotiations between two commissioners of two sovereign States. I refer the Committee to two particular provisions, and no doubt other hon. Members with more acute eyes will have spotted provisions that raise constitutional matters of equal importance.
1.45 a.m.
I refer first to Article III. It is to be observed that it is not described as a section or a clause. Article III states
That the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall be represented by one and the same Parliament to be stiled the Parliament of Great Britain.
I have no doubt that it was for that reason that the draftsmen of the present Bill chose to describe as Assemblies the legislative bodies with which the Government hope to endow Scotland and Wales. However, we must consider the substance of what we are asked to do for Wales and Scotland—to endow them with Parliaments. That is in plain contradiction of Article III.
The side note to Article XVIII describes it as concerned with "laws concerning public rights." But the article states:
that no alteration be made in laws which concern private right except for the evident utility of the subjects within Scotland.
That could be a matter for keen debate, analysis and construction. Schedule 6, Group 23, of the Bill is entitled "Private law". How can we be certain that, even with the benevolent assistance of the hon. Members of the nationalist parties, a Scottish Parliament or Assembly will enact measures concerning private law which will be for the evident benefit and utility of the subjects within Scotland? Are we entitled to abdicate our responsibility in the face of Article XVIII of the Act of Union? This is a matter of profound constitutional importance.
With his legal background, perhaps the Minister of State will be able to give us his advice. He shakes his head with becoming modesty. Even at this late hours, then, we should ask for the assistance of the Lord Advocate and perhaps the Attorney-General. I say the Attorney-General although I appreciate that he is carrying a great load of responsibility at present. It is not for me to speculate what he may face tomorrow morning but this is a matter which affects not only Scottish courts but the English courts.
I recognise that the Attorney-General is always responsible to the House of Commons. He is the principal legal adviser of the House on these matters. I do not wish to draw invidious comparisons between the status of the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate on this matter, but our debate will be advantaged by their presence.
I hope that the Committee feels that I have uncovered a point of profound importance. Without presuming to criticise the Chair, I was a little surprised at the suggestion of a previous occupant that the Minister of State will be able to deal with all the amendments grouped together on the Notice Paper merely by glancing at them. Perceptive and imaginative though he is, the Minister cannot possibly have envisaged all the arguments that I have advanced, nor those that will be advanced by other right hon. and hon. Members.
As I have said, I do not claim to dogmatise on this point. I merely claim

the credit for perhaps having unearthed a point that deserves much closer consideration by the Committee than the Patronage Secretary's representative is capable of giving it, than the Lord President is disposed to give it or than the Minister of State is allowed to give it.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. and learned Friend will have noted that Article VI says:
That all parts of the United Kingdom for ever from and after the union shall have the same allowances encouragements and drawbacks.
He is therefore very right in saying that there are many legal matters involved which must be answered in this debate and can be answered only by the Attorney-General or a Law Officer. Is it not, therefore, quite wrong that the debate should be concluded, perhaps, without their presence?

Mr. Rees: I am always glad of the deployment of the heavy artillery of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—thundering behind me, in front of me and beside me. It gives me the fortitude to carry on.
I feel seriously, I hope without immodesty—I hope that I carry the Committee with me in this, even if hon. Members do not reach the same conclusions as I do on great political points—that here is a constitutional point of great importance which deserves much closer consideration than it has so far received.

Mr. Kinnock: I shall not follow the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) down the path he pursued against some of my right hon. and hon. Friends—at least, not tonight. There may be future occasions on which I have to adopt the same general attitude to them as he has possibly done, undoubtedly for strategic reasons; but this will not be one of them because the hour is late.
As it afforded some amusement at the time, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will not mind me reminding him that when the Bill was published and when certain alarm was voiced about the prospect of disunity arising from it, he said to me and one or two of my hon. Friends, with complete assurance, "Do not worry about disunity. We have provided against it in the Bill." It is my hope that my


hon. Friend will be around next week, for instance, when we have a heavy frost, or in summer, when we might have a drought. He can always introduce a Bill against both eventualities with complete assurance, and neither will occur and the British people will not be inconvenienced, "droughted" or disunited.
Some of my hon. Friends and I have tabled amendments to the clause in which we wish to delete everything after "Kingdom", or at least, after "dom", in line 9. We have done that because the whole sentence,
They do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it ",
measured against any criteria, cannot be anything more than mere wishful thinking. What the rest of the Bill demonstrates—indeed, all the political campaigns, considerations, appeasements and debates that have gone into making up the Bill demonstrate this—is that the unity of the kingdom has already been affected. The unity of the Kingdom is mose directly threatened. That is the purpose of some of the most influential Members of Parliament—at least, the tail that appears to wag the devolutionary dog that comes from the Opposition Benches. Their purpose and intent is to disunify the United Kingdom.
On these bases and over a couple of years of giving considerable attention to these matters, I believe that it is impossible for us to pass a Bill involving such disunity. The whole question of the supreme authority of Parliament, about which I know my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is completely reassured, is also very much in question, so much so that it is quite ridiculous to put such an assurance in Clause 1 or to believe that such self-confidence is to be permitted to delude the Government, the Committee or the people of Scotland and Wales.
But I do not worry about the disunity of the kingdom. I am not like the convinced and almost ideologically committed Members on the Opposition Benches. One of the canons of their general political belief is to accept and respond to the unity of the kingdom. The unity of Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a convenient expedient. It tends to benefit the people of

Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. That is not because it has always been there but because for a mixture of historical, economic, cultural and constitutional accidents it tends to benefit the people. The size of the United Kingdom, the relatively easy access to all parts of the United Kingdom, the intermingling and inter-marriage and the general social intercourse of all peoples of the United Kingdom make it convenient and expedient to accept unity. It is not a virtue in itself.
If the people of my constituency would be greater advantaged by devolution, I should be a devolutionist. If I could have it demonstrated to me that they would be greater advantaged by independence for Wales, I should be in favour of independence. If it could be demonstrated to me that the people of Bedwellty would be better off in orbit around the moon, I should probably form a space probe. However, even with their difficulties, their economic depression, their shortcomings and the great rents in their social fabric in my constituency, the relationship that they currently have not merely with the central Government but with centrally financed Government means that my constituents, who tragically and through no fault of their own are not able to pay the full cost of their social bills, are able to rely on the contributions from those in other parts of the United Kingdom who pay their bills for them.
That is the convenient expedient. That is the benefit of union for my constituents. That is why I consider that anything that threatens or afflicts the existing unity should be contested with all my strength, with all my parliamentary influence and with all my ability to disrupt, interrupt and overthrow. It is also the reason for the overwhelming majority of my constituents happening to share my great distaste for and opposition to the Bill. That is because they know on which side their bread is buttered.
That is not being over-materialistic, although I think it is one of the necessities of improverished life to have a fairly high regard for material necessity. It is a fact that my constituents recognise, together with that material connection, all of the social, political and cultural relationships. This touches the political, cultural and social relationships


which they have with people of their own class in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Treasured friends, comrades and brothers in the trade union movement are committed to devolution—and not just to this devolution but to considerably more devolution. It is the formal policy of the Welsh TUC to have a Welsh Assembly in Cardiff with substantial financial powers that go far beyond what the Government propose or will accept.
2.0 a.m.
Despite the existence of Assemblies in Edinburgh and Cardiff, the unity of the working class in Britain cannot be fragmented by constitutional rearrangements aimed at bringing government nearer to the people. They will not infringe the solidarity and unity of the working class of Britain. They are not intended to do so. The last thing the Government want to do is to breach that solidarity, but in the reality of the allocation of major new nationalised industry sites, the allocation of new Civil Service jobs, the dispersal of central Government, the allocation of money for social or environmental projects, the contest we now have will be sharpened and embittered by the fact that it will be Wales, as represented through its national Assembly, and Scotland, as represented through its national Assembly, and Britain as discussed in this Parliament, that will be involved in the bitterest conflicts with one another.
Because of the preoccupation with the need for jobs, prosperity and security, especially in the disadvantaged parts of the United Kingdom, that must lead to breaches and conflicts between one area and another, and rifts inside the working class. We shall need all the unity we can get to overcome that situation.
I hope that with the solidarity that has been maintained by the three TUCs of Britain and in the unions Britain will thrive in future, with or without devolution. The Bill will impose an immense burden and strain, and there will be a temptation to put local interests first. The Bill promises disunity and disintegration.
Accusations of disintegration are pooh-poohed by the devolutionists, but if devolution does not seek to disintegrate, what does it seek to do? If it is not the purpose of devolution to withdraw

from the scrambled egg of the British constitution certain functions and powers and install them in new "devo-parliaments", what is the purpose of devolution?
The Government say that one can draw a line and set a high-tide mark. It is said that a specific perimeter can be set to the expansion of those powers and that disintegration will not take place. Where is that margin to be set? Is it to be set where the Government currently propose, or where the Welsh TUC, the Communist Party, or the Welsh National Party or the SNP propose that it should be set? But we have heard from both the nationalist parties that they are not separatist parties but are only after independence. Is that where the margin will be set?
By now everyone is familiar with the slippery slope argument. One could be accused of tedious repetition for using it again. The reason it crops up so often in debates, not just in this House but in pubs, clubs, chapels and party discussions in Wales, Scotland and England, is because the slippery slope argument happens to be true.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument about where devolution should stop. As one of the major advocates of a referendum, would the hon. Gentleman agree that where devolution stops is a matter for the people of Wales and Scotland and that they will decide how far they want to go?

Mr. Kinnock: If we had in front of us the questions to be put in the referendum I would be in a better position to answer the hon. Gentleman. I shall strike a bargain with him. If he will give me an undertaking to abide for the remainder of his political career with the outcome of the referendum, I will give him a similar undertaking that I will abide for the rest of my political career with the outcome of the referendum.
I was interested in securing the perimeter. The fact is that even if the people of Wales voted "Yes" to this Bill we cannot accept that that would set the seal on further drift, strain and disintegration.
I do not believe that the people of Wales will vote "Yes" or, even if they


do, that that in itself will set that seal. But one seal they will be able to set is the seal that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) likes least of all. That is the seal for generations to come upon the whole lunacy of a separate Wales. That question must be put in the referendum, too. I hope the hon. Member for Merioneth will accept the authenticity of the votes of the people of Wales in the referendum in the same way as I intend to do.
In many respects we are really looking more at the dispersal of Civil Service jobs, or lack of finance, or aspirations that do not yet exist but must be aroused because of the existence of quasi-parliaments in Endinburgh and Cardiff than at the prophecy of disunity. That makes the phrase in Clause 1, that the Bill can legislate against disunity or against any diminution in the supremacy of Parliament absolute nonsense.
The borders that will be created in the minds of the people of Britain by the new constitutional status of Scotland and Wales, together with all the paraphernalia and pomp, will be more important than any borders that can be put upon maps. A factor of British politics that has hitherto been totally absent when considering the allocation of jobs, money or power has been that of where people live. That will now become a major consideration. Whatever undertakings the Government give, and however specific they intend to be in their guarantees against disunity, they cannot surmount the new thirsts of 1977 and the jealousies, resentments and meannesses that must arise as a consequence of devolution.
Whatever the consequence of the referendum in Scotland or Wales. these are pressures that we shall have to deal with. I said earlier that I was not worried about disunity because I accept unity as an experience. I reject the pressures on it because they will reduce the standards of the people I represent and the people of Scotland and Wales and will embitter social relationships. The worst thing that can happen in the immediate future is the imposition of strains and the fuelling of angers and resentments. That we can well do without.
For that reason we should not have any confidence that the Government can legislate against those developments in

1977. It cannot be repeated too often that the Government have delivered a springboard to the separatist cause. The people of each country will decide whether the separatists shall be victorious. They will ultimately safeguard the unity or ensure the dismemberment of the United Kingdom. There is reassurance in that. In feeding that aspiration and in giving credit to the belligerence of nationalism, the Government do a gross disservice to the supremacy of the House of Commons and the harmony and unity of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Tim Renton: We shall need all the unity we can get. That is what the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) said. How much I agree with him. It is because I fear that the Bill will promote disunity that I oppose it totally and must vote against the adoption of Clause 1 later tonight.
Earlier this evening the Minister of State gave us another glimpse of his personal philosophy. He talked about unity not depending on uniformity. He earlier referred to the diversity of the United Kingdom and said that he wished to encourage it. It is a strange way of promoting unity to seek to encourage diversity at a time when the economic strains upon us are so great. He repeatedly stressed that in his personal judgment the Bill will promote unity. But there will never be a second chance to think about this.
If the Minister's personal judgment is wrong, if the Bill promotes disunity rather than unity, we shall not have another chance to look at it again. To think that once we have devolved powers to a Scottish or Welsh Assembly we shall be able to get them back again is to live in cloud-cuckoo-land. I should like the Minister's personal judgment to be right for his own sake and the sake of the United Kingdom. I wish he were right and that the Bill could promote unity. It is a matter of personal judgment, but I fear that he is wrong and that the consequences of that error on his part and on the part of the Lord President will be disastrous for the long-term unity of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Bedwellty in his very good speech touched on many reasons why he thought the Bill would promote disunity. He did not mention


that, whereas there is one set of politicians now, under the Bill there will be three sets of politicians. We in the House of Commons kid ourselves and the people that we are in control of events. We are not. We have civil servants to help us in exercising the control that we believe we have but in fact do not have. As a result of this Bill, where there was one set of politicians before, now there will be three—and magnified sets in Edinburgh and Cardiff. That can only lead to further friction, and further disillusion with the political system. It will be a further source of disunity throughout the troubled United Kingdom.
2.15 a.m.
I note and I respect the personal honesty of the Minister of State. I fear that the root of this Bill lies in the political gerrymandering of the Labour Party and its determination to maintain Labour seats in Scotland, but I think that, personally, the Minister really believes in his own argument that unity can be promoted by encouraging diversity. I put the point to him that it is harder to stick to that philosophy when the Scottish National Party is arguing time and time again that it will make use of this opportunity to get sovereign parliamentary independence for Scotland. Against that background of a now major party in Scotland which says that it is using the Bill as a fulcrum for its purposes, it is much harder to accept the naive and ingenuous view that unity will be promoted by the Bill.
Further disillusionment will result from the Bill. Although there is a pretence of devolution in the measure, if one reads it closely one can see that all along it is London which holds the grip and keeps the purse strings. It is London which says "we will let you take things so far, but at the end of the day it is we who will manage them". The Minister of State says that this is a source of strength, but it will be a source of disillusionment in years to come when the Scots, and to a lesser degree, the Welsh, who believe that they have been given an element of power over their affairs, suddenly find that in the end it is complacent, selfcentred London which, in the final analysis, will manage things. That can only be a source of disillusionment which will lead to disunity.
Earlier, the right hon. Member for Down South (Mr. Powell) touched on the fact that the sovereignty of this Parliament had passed to the EEC. He made the point that in 1972 the Conservative Government resisted that argument by saying that in the end Westminster would always have the right to remove us from the Treaty of Rome, and therefore, the ultimate sovereignty of this Parliament was not affected. This devolution Bill does not touch in any way on the fact that we have passed a great deal of our sovereignty to the EEC. We are only just beginning to learn to live with that, and with the way in which the Community affects the law—including Scottish law—the accountancy profession, and business life. It is only just dawning on us, and this is not touched on at all in the Bill.
In Clause 1 the Government say that this is the supreme Parliament in the end, and that we have the right to undo anything we do not like as it develops. But that is not true. Once power has been given to Edinburgh and Cardiff, we cannot get it back. This is another area in this Bill which is effectively a fraud. The reassertion in Clause 1 that nothing is changing, and nothing will change because no supremacy is being passed to Edinburgh or Cardiff is a fraud.
In Amendment No. 21, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and myself, we specifically suggested that the second sentence of Clause 1 should be omitted. The reason for that lies in the technicalities of the clause itself. In the first place, there is a contradiction in the sentence. It asserts at one and the same time the supremacy of this Parliament, yet it says that Parliament can pass any law it wishes. Now because our Parliament can pass any laws, it has the ability to pass away its own supremacy and sovereignty. This contradiction is inherent in the second sentence.
There is a further substantial technicality in that second sentence which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) has already touched upon. It is that we should not pass anything in the Bill which does not chime with the Act of Union in 1706. One of the unfortunate aspects of speaking late at night is that one's hon. Friends


have already made one's best points, and they have probably developed them better than one would have been able to oneself.
Certainly in terms of reading this Bill together with the Act of 1706 my hon. and learned Friend developed the point extremely well with his usual beautiful lucidity. There is a further point that he could have developed, but which perhaps he left for me as a crumb from the rich man's table. It is that it is argued by Scottish lawyers that in the 1706 Act certain irreversible articles were inserted which could not be removed by the new federal Parliament of Great Britain which was created by that Act.
That Act saw the coming together of the two constituent members of the Parliaments of England and of Scotland. To that extent it was a federal Parliament which emerged. These irreversible constituent points such as the setting up and guaranteeing of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland could not be altered for all time without the consent of the two member bodies which originally agreed to the treaty under which the Act of 1706 was drawn up
So the logical follow-on to the argument developed by my hon. and learned Friend is that if there was concern that by this Bill we were touching any of these irreversible points, these constituent acts, we would have to recall the independent Parliaments of England and Scotland in order to get their permission to do so.

Mr. Henderson: I have been most interested by the lucid way in which the hon. Gentleman has developed his argument. Is he aware, however, that many of us in Scotland believe that there were certain entrenched clauses in the treaty between two sovereign and independent States, that this Parliament has never hesitated to break those clauses when it suited it, that they have been broken time and time again, and that since Scotland is the injured party we have the right to terminate the agreement?

Mr. Renton: That is an interesting point. There was the notable instance where the Act was altered subsequently by this House by waiving the clause dealing with the 16 representative peers and permitting all the Scottish peers to sit in the upper House. That was a

notable extension of the powers of the peerage in Scotland. There one sees an example of Westminster gently using its powers in a kindly way to extend the representative rights of those peers.

Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend is arguing a somewhat legalistic and, if I may say so, academic point. If resentments grow, if there is bitterness and division, then conventions and treaties entered into years ago, say in 1707, are of no account. One is then in a revolutionary situation. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we start down the road by which extremist nationalists finally get control in one of the two Celtic countries, which results in discrimination against English people living and working in those countries, there might be a backlash in this country and a desire not to have a return? We would be set upon a path where the possibility of reunion would be totally out of the question.

Mr. Renton: That is quite correct. Once we have gone down the road we shall not be able to go back. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) is making the better part of my speech for me.
I would like to get back to the legalistic point. Of course, it is legalistic to argue that the English and Scottish parliaments must be re-established. I do not think that the Minister of State would enjoy trying to do that. Returning to the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal, if there was any question of Parliament trying to do things in the Bill that, it could be argued, were ultra vires what a paradise there would be for lawyers in the years ahead. That is what I fear, that the road that we are now going down is one in which meat, potatoes and lovely rich meals will be available for lawyers particularly for Scottish lawyers, in future years.
There are so many areas of doubt in the Bill that there will be great opportunities for the lawyers to argue why this or that should not have been devolved. This is not something that Parliament should pass on for the future.
So we return to the point that has been made throughout the debate about the potential source of friction, disunity, and discontent that will arise from the Bill. The fundamental point is that the Bill


does affect the unity of the United Kingdom. If it were not so, I suspect that the Government would not have inserted this declaration of faith in Clause 1. Unless one is worried about something, one does not go around denying it. What I fear is that the Bill will go down in history as a monument of verbose irrelevance to the needs of our time, a monument to the Lord President. His Bill will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom, and it is so massively irrelevant to what the United Kingdom needs today. That is why I hope that we shall be able to vote first for the elimination of the second part of the clause and later, on a "clause stand part" debate, for the elimination of the whole clause.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I listened with interest in the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). I must confess that the beginning of it worried me considerably because he began by saying that if it could be demonstrated to him that the wealthier of his constituents would benefit from devolution he would be a pro-devolutionist. He said that if the Bill could be demonstrated in financial terms he would be almost in favour of a Bedwellty Nationalist Association. He redeemed himself to some extent by saying that he did not regard finance as the only question to be considered. I am glad of that.
It is precisely this kind of financial argument that is used in Scotland by nationalists who say that the great wealth off the shores of Scotland manifestly demonstrates the fact that the Scottish people would be better off through independence. We must be careful of the terms in which we speak about the United Kingdom as an expedient. I go this far with my hon. Friend: I do not regard the existence of the United Kingdom as totally sacrosanct. Of course it is bound to change. Of course it is open to change; it is not an immutable constitutional arrangement. But I do not want us put in the same position as the SNP and Plaid Cymru in their curious alliance.
2.30 a.m.
I find it nauseating and slightly obscene when SNP delegates go to Plaid Cymru conferences with fraternal greet-

ings and swear eternal Celtic Brotherhood against the yoke of English imperialism, but then say "Watch it brothers! It is Scotland's oil. It is not to be shared with Wales or anyone else."
I believe in the unity of the working class in this country, and, far from devolution benefiting those people, I believe that, in the longer term, it will damage the advance of Socialism and the control of the commanding heights of the economy.
The amendments seek to strengthen the part of the clause which says that the Bill does not affect the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) told us earlier about the difficulties which will face hon. Members from Scotland after devolution. He said that they will not be able to influence domestic Scottish legislation on devolved matters even though they could deal with similar subjects relating to England. I do not intend to repeat my hon. Friend's exercise in alliteration and his string of powerful political points.
If the clause means anything and is not just pious phraseology, it must be a paving clause for what follows. How does it affect Back Benchers?
Many hon. Members are more familiar than I am with the procedures for Private Members' Bills, but we all know that there is an annual lottery and that 24 Members are allowed to introduce Bills. We also know about the Ten Minutes Rule procedure in which hon. Members may seek leave to introduce Bills on topics of their choice. What would happen after devolution if I won a place in the ballot and chose to introduce a Bill affecting domestic legislation which had been devolved to the Scottish Assembly? Would I be able to bring in my Bill? I can see nothing in the clause to stop me.
May we have an assurance from the Government that there is nothing to prevent an hon. Member bringing in a Bill to deal with any subject which is germane to the domestic legislation of any part of the United Kingdom? We want a Government assurance that if such a Bill became law, it would be binding on the Assembly. If Clause 1 is a paving clause, I can see nothing in it which derogates from this ability of Back Benchers to bring in such Bills.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Clause 18(2) provides:
A Scottish Assembly Act may amend or repeal a provision made by or under an Act of Parliament.
So any such Act passed by this Parliament could be immediately repealed by the Assembly.

Mr. Hughes: One of the virtues of giving way is that one finds that points one intends to make later are anticipated. Perhaps there is telepathy in this House. It might save time if we did all our business by that means.
If I am right about Back Benchers, the same must be true of the Secretary of State for Scotland. His ability to bring forward legislation will be unimpaired. If it was felt that the Assembly was being dilatory the Government could bring forward legislation to speed un the legislative process. We often say that we have not enough time to deal with the legislation we get now, and the same will probably be said of the Assembly. Westminster could be a useful parliamentary adjunct to speed the legislative process. Legislation enacted here should supersede legislation existing in Scotland or passed by the Assembly. Then Parliament would be supreme.
But, astonishingly, nothing in the Bill prevents the Assembly from immediately repealing such legislation or lays down how it should exercise its executive function towards legislation enacted here. There are many checks and balances on how this Parliament shall behave towards the Assembly, but nothing about how the Assembly should treat Westminster legislation. Both are needed if Clause 1 is to be meaningful. We must spell out the executive functions of the Assembly.
What penalties will there be if members of the Assembly do not accept Parliament's supremacy? They will be bound in theory by the oath of allegiance they will have to take, but what are the sanctions? The Bill is totally silent on the matter.
If there is any virtue in the belief that too many reversals or changes of legislation are bad for the people we represent, the Assembly should not be able immediately to repeal legislation that we pass. Whether the time limit should be a year, two years or three years is a matter for debate. If the Assembly immediately

repealed some of our legislation, would there not be a temptation for the Government or a Private Member, if it had been introduced by a Private Member, to try to overturn the Assembly's decision? A Back Bencher might pilot through a measure about which he felt strongly, and see it immediately repealed. If we had a circle of repeated changes in legislation, those who would suffer would be the people whom the legislation was meant to help.
It is proper for the Government to say that such checks and balances are unnecessary, because the likelihood is that the Government of the day would not proceed in advance of public opinion or introduce measures if they thought that the Assembly was hostile. But although they argue that it is unlikely that the Secretary of State for Scotland would find it necessary to use the checks and balances in the Bill, they nevertheless find it necessary to include them. The Government cannot have it both ways.
If we are to have devolution, and the Government mean what they say in the clause, we must have guarantees that they will take these points on board and introduce amending legislation to make sure that there are mechanisms for the supremacy of Parliament in its legislative authority.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: It has become clearer to most hon. Members, except one or two on the Government Front Bench, during this long and interesting debate that the Bill is unworkable. The Minister of State made a gallant defence of untenable positions. I hope that the truth is being more and more impressed on members of my own Front Bench. To say that the Government hope one day to improve the Bill is nonsense. It is beyond improvement. That is the grim fact facing the Committee, as has been brought out more and more clearly during these six hours of very good, non-repetitious debate.
The clause is declaratory, but also far more than that. It is the Government's promise to the people that neither the unity of the kingdom nor the power and sovereignty of Parliament shall be destroyed by the Bill. But neither of those conditions can be fulfilled. The unity of the Kingdom depends, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr.


Powell) so clearly said, on the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament. Clearly, the Bill will make an enormous difference to Parliament as it has been hitherto established. Of that there is no question. Even the shape of Parliament will change.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) in an interesting discursion on the Labour Party, asked what would happen to the Labour Party in Scotland. It will have to fall into line with the local Labour Party's representation in Scotland. It will be a Scottish Labour Party, which may take totally different views from the Labour Party here in Westminster. Precisely the same thing will happen to the Conservative Party. Local elections will dominate its views here. There will have to be a joint manifesto for the local Conservative Party in Scotland and for Members elected to Westminster. In Northern Ireland it was clear for a long time that the representatives who mattered in Northern Ireland were not the representatives sent to this House but those running the Government in Northern Ireland.
2.45 a.m.
The whole structure of Parliament will change. Once that happens the central sense of unity of the kingdom must inevitably decline and fall into desuetude. Not only that, but it will lead to endless friction between local parliaments, whether in Cardiff or Edinburgh, and the Westminster Parliament. This clause is a promise of what will happen but the only people who know what will happen if the Bill goes through, and the only people who remain fairly silent, except for an occasional crow, are the members of the nationalist parties. They know that, if the Bill goes through, in six years' time we shall be on the road to a fully independent Scotland. I do not know about Wales, but certainly that will be so in Scotland. We shall be on the road to the breakdown of the United Kingdom.
Every speech has been directed to this point. Every speech has forecast this. This long debate must tave impressed on the Government the essential and disastrous weakness of the Bill. How is it possible to believe in a referendum if, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) said, this Bill is based on a lie and a mistruth? I recommend that

the Bill be dropped and that our Front Bench ceases trying to improve it and aims instead to cut its filthy throat.
I suggest to the Government that if they want to cut down the process of our debate they adopt the precedent of the 1920 Act dealing with the two Irelands. Clause 1 should be removed if the Government want us to continue with the rigmarole and nonsense before us. Let them observe the example set in the 1920 Act and make Clause 1 Clause 116, by which time we shall all see what perfect nonsense the whole thing is.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I attended the Second Reading debate but did not succeed in catching Mr. Speaker's eye. Having heard many of the speeches in this debate, which has gone very wide, I feel that the remarks I had intended to make then can be just as usefully made now.
I am doubtful and alarmed about the Bill's proposals. Here I join with the majority of Members in all parts of the Committee who have spoken today and yesterday. I do not say this because I think that the introduction of some new principle into the constitutional system is wrong. It is possible that the major reform of the parliamentary system as a whole is a proper thing to carry out. If these proposals were founded on a principle of uninversal validity for the kingdom, they could be taken in a different spirit. Certainly I should not be so unhappy about them.
I am doubtful and alarmed about these proposals not because they aim to control and change arrangements, but because they are a reaction to events, particularly in Scotland. In short I fear that these proposals—I regret to say this, because they are brought forward by my right hon. Friends with whom I have worked for many years and respect—are a matter of expediency, not of ideas. Unless I can be converted then to some new universal principle for the government of Great Britain and, I suppose, Northern Ireland, I must confess my belief in a centralised system of government such as we have now, though administration should be decentralised wherever possible. I make no apology for saying that.
There are three reasons for that belief in centralised government which seem


clear to me. The first is the historic reason that the establishment of the Union of these islands over the centuries was no mean achievement. Indeed, it was a considerable achievement, first, by the kings and later, largely by the Parliament at Westminster, developed further after the Act of Union with Scotland.
The second is the international or European reason. Now that we are part of the European Economic Community, of which I have always been in favour, we need a strong united British presence within it.
The third reason is that, for sound parliamentary government and well-defined party administration within it, we cannot give the people a choice of rulers and policies unless we have a strong centralised politicial instrument to make the choice effective.
If there were an overwhelming desire to throw all or the greater part of this unity of the kingdom away, it might be different. I am not convinced that there is that desire. The proposed referenda may help, but in the end it must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the people, not only of Scotland or of Wales, but of the whole of the kingdom, that there is this desire.
I fear that in future in Scotland, as in Northern Ireland, we shall witness history reversing itself. We shall see sterile political disputes moving to the center of the stage and pushing aside the social, industrial and economic controversies which should be the focus of attention in a mature society. Every argument, particularly if the Scottish Assembly comes into being, will be about who does what and who is stopping whom. The situation will be used by the Scottish National Party to prove that half a loaf is worse than useless and that the whole loaf must be given.
If, in the Assembly at Edinburgh, the majority party's outlook and philosophy is different from that of the majority at Westminster, what will Scottish Members at Westminster do? Do they vote for their party or for their country north of the border?
In all seriousness I say to my Scots colleagues that Scotland was never an English colony. If anything, at times it has been the other way round. It was an independent nation with a king, a Par-

liament, and army and navy of its own. But Scotland was joined to the rest of the Kingdom first by the Crown and then by the Act of Union. As a result both nations prospered in influence and wealth even if that wealth was not evenly shared. If Scotland now wishes to go back on that Union and can prove that desire to the satisfaction of the rest of the United Kingdom I do not wish to stop it.
But I am doubtful about this premature attempt to set up an unstable halfway house called devolution that will please no one, will weaken the nation socially and economically and will probably put an end to any long-term hope of a true social democracy in Britain.

Mr. Gow: I speak in support of Amendment No. 21, which is the same as Amendment No. 435 moved by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). The amendment seeks to remove from the Bill the second sentence in Clause 1.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) did an unkindness to the Lord President when he sought to place on him the responsibility for drafting the Bill. I suspect that much of the responsibility for the drafting of the Bill rests with the newly ennobled Chairman of Cable and Wireless.
We are invited, if we assent to the inclusion of the second sentence of the clause, to embark upon a course that is certain to be fraught with immense difficulty which will result in a field-day for the lawyers. Who am I to complain about that? But it lies ill on the lips of hon. Members opposite, with their well known prejudice against the legal profession, to create a situation which will put a great deal of money into the pockets of lawyers.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal said that a Law Officer should be on the Front Bench and now the Lord Advocate is in the Chamber. I shall not criticise him except in one respect, and he might agree with me. That is, that the knowledge of the Lord Advocate of English law is not as great as the knowledge of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. It is not within the province of the Lord Advocate to advise the Committee tonight what would be the construction placed upon the second sentence of the clause,


because when that sentence comes to be interpreted by the courts it will not be interpreted by the Scottish courts. It will be interpreted by the courts of the United Kingdom here in London.

3.0 a.m.

Mr. John Smith: The courts of England.

Mr. Gow: The courts of England. It will, therefore, be a matter on which we seek to have advice not from the Lord Advocate but from the Attorney-General.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): The hon. Gentleman is making the rather unfortunate assumption that when we talk about interpreting British statutes we must necessarily assume that British statutes are interpreted by English courts. Of course, that is not true.

Mr. Gow: Is the Lord Advocate telling the Committee that it will not be within the province of the courts in London, the High Court, the Divisional Court, the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords, to determine judicially what is the meaning of the second sentence of the clause?

The Lord Advocate: If the matter arose in London, it would be interpreted by the English courts. If the matter arose in Scotland, it would be interpreted by the Scottish courts. The hon. Gentleman implied that in any circumstances the meaning of the clause would be interpreted only by the English courts.

Mr. John Smith: What the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has said is stupid and ignorant. He is supposed to be a Scot, too.

Mr. Gow: No. I accept that it is more likely, for reasons that I shall develop, that the interpretation of the second sentence of the clause will be a matter to be decided by the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. That is why I say that upon the question of the interpretation of the second sentence we would welcome the advice of the Attorney-General.
When the Minister of State sought to deal with the effect of the second sentence, before he had listened to any of the queries raised by hon. Members and before hearing any of the arguments, he confessed himself as unable to give a

judicial interpretation as to the effect. That came as no surprise to the Committee because we have never had a sentence such as this in any statute that has been approved by Parliament. That is what is so extraordinary. The Lord President expressed incredulity a moment ago when the Committee's attention was drawn to the provisions of Clause 18(2).

Mr. Foot: Mr. Foot indicated dissent.

Mr. Gow: The Lord President will perhaps reply later. However, that subsection states—and this, at least, is in the plainest terms—
A Scottish Assembly may amend or repeal a provision made by or under an Act of Parliament.
How can that power given to an Assembly in Edinburgh be consistent with the declaration that appears in the second sentence of Clause 1—that the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom is not affected? As our constitution now rests, it is not possible for an Act of this United Kingdom Parliament to be repealed save by this Parliament. Now we have it stated in the plainest terms that the new Assembly may amend or repeal an Act made by this Parliament.
I wonder what on earth is meant by the phrase,
They"—
—that is, the provisions of the Bill—
do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom".
The Committee should note that the phrase is not "shall not affect the unity of the United Kingdom" but
do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom".
How will that be construed by the courts? If a court should find that one of the provisions in the Bill, or the Act as it would then be, affected the unity of the United Kingdom, would the section be void and unenforceable? These are real questions to which I hope the Minister will address himself when he replies.
I am glad that the Lord President is in his place. He will remember that one of his distinguished predecessors once referred to what was then claimed by the Conservative Party to be its unity. Aneurin Bevan said that it was the unity of the graveyard. Is that the sort of unity to which the Government are referring?
Government and legislation by declaration serve only to add to confusion. There is so much legislation today that is open to confusion and difficult to interpret, and for the Government to heap yet one further confusion on to a people who are already bemused by a surfeit of legislation is to create only a field-day for the lawyers and bewilderment for the people, thus bringing into further disrepute the legislative process of this place.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Although this is the first clause in the Bill, it is clear that it lies at the heart of the matter. It claims to make changes in the government of Scotland and Wales without affecting the unity of the United Kingdom. Earlier in the debate we heard the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) asking why the clause was in the Bill. Later we heard an answer from the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter)—namely, that it has something to do with party political gain, as, indeed, he said the whole Bill has.
The comments of the hon. Member for Hartlepool reminded me of the point made by the Prime Minister on Second Reading. He said:
The purpose of the Bill, therefore, is to give the Scottish and Welsh people a surer guarantee and a more relevant instrument of national identity than a protest vote thrown to an extreme theory.
He went on to say:
The essence of the nationalist parties is to believe that national identity and a United Kingdom are competitors and rivals. We think exactly the opposite. They are partners, each enriching the other. It is on that fundamental judgment that the Government's policy and this Bill are based."—[Official Report, 13th December 1976; Vol. 922, c. 976.]
With those words, and in the context of the debate, I think that the Prime Minister was making it clear that the fundamental purpose of the Bill was party political, and that by taking over part of the nationalist platform he hoped to defuse the appeal of the nationalist parties to the electorate. I believe that the underlying theme of the Bill is the self-preservation of the Labour Party in power in Wales, Scotland and here at Westminster. That point has been made by others in the debate.
There is some debate in the Labour Party about whether the Government's concessionary approach to nationalism is

the best way to preserve the Labour Party's power. Those who have expressed concern on the Labour Benches on that score are, to my mind, very right to do so because the passage of the Bill and the establishment of the institutions which it involves may result in a tremendous fillip to the nationalist parties and a great surprise to the Labour Party. However, I shall not enter into that argument.
My quarrel is with the Prime Minister and his fundamental judgment, to which the Minister referred earlier this evening, that the provision of what the Prime Minister called instruments of national identity—the Assemblies and their ancillary bodies—are the best way to deal with the age-old problems of Scotland and of the Principality.
I go some way in agreeing with the analysis of the situation made by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). My view is that the Assemblies will become focal points of bitter protests and nests of separatism, and that the division of powers between central Government and Westminster on the one hand and the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly on the other will lead to ever-increasing frustration and acrimony. They will become instruments of disunity and disharmony for a number of reasons. Some people would welcome such a development.
I shall confine the rest of my remarks largely to Wales. Some believe that the Welsh Assembly will be able to exercise greater pressure on the Government than we as Members of Parliament have been able to do. Personally, I doubt this very much. I believe that initially the Assembly will divert criticism from Westminster to itself and that there will then be attempts to re-channel that criticism to Westminster through Members of Parliament and in direct negotiations with the central Government.
There is an obvious parallel between the Assembly and the block grant system on the one hand and the local authorities and the rate support grant system on the other. We as Members are able to do little about the rate support grant. I have no reason to believe that we shall exert any more influence on the block grant system, if and when it is established. The central Government will control it firmly, and the amount will be settled with the Executive—probably


behind closed doors. I cannot see how the provision of this instrument of national identity will assist the people of Wales.
The Government argue that it will bring government closer to the people. Indeed, this was the second major benefit to which the Prime Minister referred on Second Reading. Again, I do not see the validity of that argument, except in the most superficial sense. The Government are interposing another tier of government between themselves and the people. As the Prime Minister said in that speech, the control of the purse strings remains here and with the Treasury. The powers devolved in this connection are spending powers only, although the Government have no objection in principle to devolving revenue-raising powers.
Nevertheless, the Prime Minister said:
Once we discard a system where the main assessment of finance is made centrally, we also discard the notion of equality of treatment based on need throughout the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 13th December 1976; Vol. 922, col. 990.]
3.15 a.m.
I would have thought that abandonment would have amounted to an objection in principle but apparently not. It may only be a matter of time before revenue-raising powers are gladly devolved by the Government to silence the cries for an ever-increasing share of United Kingdom resources. It will be a sad day for Wales when that notion of equality of treatment based on need is abandoned and government is provided closer to the people by giving the Assembly taxation powers.
I go a great deal of the way with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who took the view that one cannot have a self-respecting Assembly with spending powers only and no powers of taxation, but if revenue-raising powers are granted, government in Wales will be a shade too close for most people's comfort. If further representation in the Assembly means further taxation I have no doubt whatever that the Welsh people will reject the Government proposals cut of hand.
The Prime Miniser was in no doubt about it. He said:
We dropped the power to surcharge on the rates that we had originally proposed

because it was clear that Scotland and Wales did not want it."—[Official Report, 13th December 1976, Vol. 922, col. 989.]
But the Prime Minister added that the Government's mind was not closed against a replacement for the surcharge. I doubt whether we shall hear of such a replacement before the referendum. But thereafter, if the people of Wales by some mischance appove of the Government's proposals, I do not think it will be long before an acceptable taxing power is devised for the Welsh Assembly. Where is the benefit to Wales in extra taxation? That is the question that should ring around the Principality.
The Government have made much of the fact that under the new system proposed in the Bill the Assemblies will be able to decide their own priorities in spending. Those priorities will, in practice, be decided by the predominent political party in the Assembly, and that is the party which dominates the industrial areas in Wales. What guarantees have we, who live in the rural areas of Wales, got that we shall figure in the Assembly's allocation of resources and that our needs will be fairly dealt with? Quite clearly, I believe that party political considerations will play a bigger part than ever in decision-making and the allocation of resources in Wales.
Some of us also fear that equality of treatment for individuals is threatened of now we have in the United Kingdom levels of government. The point that several hon. Members have already made is that life is party political enough in Wales already. It will become more so under the Assembly system.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has developed the argument that as of now we have in the United Kingdom the allocation of resources according to need. Can he tell the Committee precisely why such a system cannot operate within Wales itself?

Mr. Roberts: I think that I know Wales as well as the hon. Gentleman. In my experience the extension of party politics in Wales down into local government is tending to have an adverse effect on the whole principle of allocation in terms of individual need.
The Government have also gloried in the fact that under the Bill nominated bodies in Wales will be brought under


Assembly control. Successive Governments have created these bodies and have argued that in being responsible to the Secretary of State they are, through him, responsible to the House of Commons. If the Bill goes through, some of these bodies may continue much as they are, with nominations being made by the Assembly—in effect, by the Chief Executive. If he is a member of the Labour Party, he will simply be an aide to the Secretary of State for Wales. Other nominated bodies may be taken over by the Assembly under Clause 86. The most powerful of the bodies are strongly protected under the Bill.
The powers of the Assembly over these bodies are closely circumscribed. I am thinking in particular of the Welsh National Water Authority, but there are others. As the Association of District Councils pointed out, these are the bodies that have led to most criticism of lack of accountability. The nominated bodies face us with a new danger. With the division of powers over them between the Secretary of State and the Assembly, they will be less accountable than ever. The nominated bodies will be able to divide and rule.
Then there is the question of the relationship between the Assembly and local government. Here again, that is causing concern to the county and district council associations. The Secretary of State for Wales made clear that the local government system—
demands an early root and branch examination"—
by the Assembly. He expected the Assembly to—
put forward considered proposals for the future local government structure in Wales."—[Official Report, 15th December 1976; Vol. 922, c. 1586.]
That has generally been interpreted as an invitation to the Assembly to set up unitary authorities in place of the present county and district councils. Should that happen, it will mean the loss of one tier of local government which is closer to the people than will be the Assembly. Once again I say with confidence that the Bill is more likely to take government further from the people than bring it closer to them.
The restructuring of local government is the Government's answer to the criti-

cism that if the Bill goes through Wales will be over-governed. The restructuring of local government is a possible longterm answer to that criticism, but it is the wrong answer. Whatever criticism of local government reorganisation there may have been in Wales—not all of that has been justified—that criticism will be as nothing compared with the criticism there will be of the Welsh Assembly and its institutions once their full cost is known.
There will be an overlap between the Assembly's subject committees and local government committees. There will be delays in decision-making and a slowing down in the already slow process of government. These matters are already causing concern in Wales. It is surprising that in paragraph 83 of the White Paper "Devolution: The English Dimension", speaking of local government, the Government state:
A further reorganisation so soon after the last one would be bound to create confusion in the mind of the average elector.
The White Paper goes on to state that regional authorities would make for remoteness. What is wrong for England cannot he right for Wales. I am concerned that remoteness is what the Government want in Wales where they are threatened with the loss of power at local government level. They are hoping to withdraw power to their fastnesses in the industrial and populous South.
In putting forward the Bill, the Government have harnessed to their cause all the power-hungry elements in Wales, but they have not secured the loyalty of the people to their proposals. The people are suspicious of the Government's motives, and fearful of the consequences of the Bill. They, quite rightly, are looking for gains and benefits for themselves, and changes which will reduce, not increase, the conflicts in Wales. I regret to say this, but we are a deeply divided nation on linguistic and cultural grounds and our divisiveness is increasing. These proposals will not stop this trend, but will add fuel to the flames.
The proposals in the Bill have one solitary merit in that they provide a new political battleground, which may draw all potential contenders to the field, and prevent conflict outside. As to the benefits accruing to ordinary people, I see none to outweigh the additional burdens


which they will have to bear following the implementation of the Bill.
If the Bill built on existing institutions and contained an evolutionary approach to further democratisation, I would try to support it. But it is not so based, and feel that I cannot commend the Bill to the people of Wales as one which will provide them with better government. I believe sincerly that the opposite is the case.
It is clear from any consideration of the Bill that the Government believe that there are serious defects in the present system of government in Wales. There is a lack of responsibility to this House, and the way to remedy it is to establish a Select Committee which has the power to inquire into the various aspects of government in Wales. Maybe a national body is required to give Wales a political identity. But it is not right to set up institutions which rival this House of Commons and usurp its functions. That is a recipe for conflict and disaster. The contents of the Bill do affect the unity of the United Kingdom, and if a Division is called at the end of this debate, I shall vote against the provision in Clause 1.

Mr. Sproat: In earlier debates on this Bill—at Second Reading, and at the various Committee stage debates that we have had already—I have referred to many reasons why I object to the measure. I think it will mean more government, more civil servants, more public expenditure, and more taxation. But the one reason, above all others, why I shall vote against every clause in it, and against the Third Reading, is that it imperils and puts at risk the unity of the United Kingdom.
We have had an interesting piece of semantics from the Minister of State to the effect that when he said something it was a judgment, and when someone else said something it was an assertion. Whether I am making a judgment or an assertion, that is what I believe. Almost every speech on this group of amendments has made it clear that to a greater or less degree there is a fear that the Bill puts at risk—to put it least strongly—the unity of the United Kingdom, and it is that unity, above all, that I seek to preserve.
As many hon. Members have said in the past, and will continue to say as the

Bill progresses, there is nothing wrong with hammering home a point simply because it has been made before. We should convince the people of this country, and the repetition and hammering home of the basic points will achieve the realisation that extra costs and extra bureaucracy are involved and that the unity of the United Kingdom is being imperilled. This is a recipe for conflict and discontent.
3.30 a.m.
The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), in an extremely interesting speech, seemed at one stage to show a sort of hesitation in advancing the argument about the slippery slope towards separatism. None of us should have any hesitation about using that argument on every occasion on which it comes within the relevance of the clause we are discussing, because it is absolutely true.
The factor of cost and the point about the Bill being the slippery slope are the two things which most worry ordinary men and women. It is our duty to hammer those points home in the House of Commons and to undermine the morale of the Government and of those who support them on the Bill. It is inconceivable that the Scottish National Party would be supporting the Bill if it did not intend to use it to promote the separatism of Scotland. That is what it has said, and that is what it will do.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) earlier today admitted quite frankly that if there was a Scottish Assembly his party would use it to create an independent Scotland. I see the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) nodding, agreeing that that is what the SNP intends to do. To say, therefore, that there is no risk of demonstrably false. We cannot say how great that risk is. That is subject to a difference of judgment or assertion.
The Bill creates many areas of conflict which imperil the unity of the country. Let me deal briefly with two general areas. It will create a conflict within Scotland. This afternoon in the previous debate we heard that Shetland was making it clear that it did not want anything to do with the rest of Scotland if devolution was introduced. The unity of the present set-up is already being put at risk. If there was a Scottish


Assembly everybody outside the West Central belt would fear for the domination of that Assembly by Strathclyde. This fear would be felt by Labour and Conservative councillors alike in Aberdeen. They would fear that the interests of Strathclyde would predominate over the interests of the other parts of Scotland. The Assembly would become the focal point for that sort of envy and niggling between Glasgow and Aberdeen, Inverness and Edinburgh, and so on.
I hate to see such disunity being created in Scotland, but what would be more dangerous would be the disunity between England and Scotland. I will not pursue this argument from a legalistic aspect. have listened to interesting legalistic arguments tonight which I am not competent to judge. But I have proved to my satisfaction that we are putting that unity at risk.
For example, at the moment Scotland gets approximately 19 per cent. more out of the Treasury on a per capita basis than does England. For every £100 spent in England, £119 is spent in Scotland. I am frankly amazed that English MPs, some of whose constituencies suffer deprivation certainly as great as that which exists in many parts of Scotland, do not make more of this. Perhaps we in Scotland should be grateful for their generosity in allowing Scotland to take out more than it puts in.
I suggest that if there was a Scottish Assembly bitterness would arise. People would be complaining that the Scots, who had their own Assembly, were getting more money in grants than the English. People would want to know why it was that for every £100 of grants to England £119 went to Scotland. There would be demands for the Scottish grants to be cut to parity with England. The Scots would get bitter with the English because Scotland would be having grant taken away.

Mr. Dalyell: The fact is that leaders of Labour-controlled authorities—people like Michael Campbell of Tyneside, Bill Sefton of Merseyside and Stan Yapp of the West Midlands—made it clear at the Tyne and Wear conference that they are alive to precisely that point.

Mr. Sproat: I am glad to have that confirmation. It is obvious that Scotland

is being given a good character now. But if there is an Assembly, hon. Members who represent English constituencies will start complaining, and if parity is introduced the Scots will become bitter.
An interesting point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), who asked why it was that if a Government White Paper said it was wrong to give block grants to regions of England it could be right to give block grants to Scotland. The Minister replied that if block grants were given for all the regions it would become difficult to control the economy. But that problem is escaped in Scotland and Wales and their economies are controlled. If I represented an English constituency and was told that Scotland would get a block grant while none would be given to a region such as Merseyside—where there is worse unemployment than in Strathclyde—I would want to know why. It is incredible that more hon. Members representing English constituencies have not complained on that point. They would complain if there was a Scottish Assembly, and bitterness would be engendered.
I am always amazed by the forbearance of English Members, even of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) who earlier today made a good speech. He has on a number of occasions made the point that unemployment in Liverpool is worse than in Glasgow, and that unemployment in Merseyside is worse than in West Central Scotland. Yet Scotland is still getting more money to alleviate depression than Merseyside.
I regard myself as a British MP, not as a Scottish Member, and I find it offensive that money should go to Scotland rather than be distributed on grounds of need. I say this openly in the House and I say it in Aberdeen. If deprivation is worse in Liverpool than in Aberdeen, it is the duty of a British MP to see that more money goes to Liverpool. The money should be distributed on the basis of need and not on a spurious, nationalistic basis. Yet so far hon. Members representing English constituencies have not raised these points. Humberside is another example of a place where deprivation is worse than in Scotland, and yet the area receives no more money than we do in Scotland.

Sir Bernard Braine: It should not be a matter for surprise that hon. Members with English constituencies have not raised this point. Such points do not occur to them for the reason that a nation is what it believes itself to be, and all people living in the United Kingdom are firstly British and part of a nation to which we are all proud to belong. That is why the matter had not occurred to them.

Mr. Sproat: I agree. I am a Scot but I regard myself as British first and a Scot second. I regard myself as a member of the British nation. I fear that the generous spirit that has not previously concentrated on such facts as block grants will do so as a result of the Bill. I fear that hon. Members will start to make that point. Envy, bitterness and greed will enter our national debates and will imperil the unity of the nation.

Sir Bernard Braine: It is the Government's fault.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is right. The Government are to blame. For squalid reasons of political appeasement, they are putting the unity of the country at risk.
It is no use the Government taking refuge in the argument that if any difficulties arose, they could be decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That was the pathetic answer of the Minister of State when he rashly got to his feet to reply to the debate three and three quarter hours ago.
Let me give the Minister a practical example. A decision will be taken every year on the block grant to be given to the Assembly. A graphic and telling picture was painted in an earlier debate of a Scottish Prime Minister—God help us—coming out of 10 Downing Street and saying that he had extracted every penny he wanted for Scotland from the British Prime Minister. That is inconceivable.
Every year when the grant is made, there will be whines that it is not enough, that Scotland is being done down and that the British Parliament is hammering the Scots. It is lunatic to think that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council could resolve the conflicts or would mean a thing in the minds of those who believed that Scotland was being done down. Such

a view is naive beyond belief, and I cannot think that anyone in the Government really holds it.
The Government cannot believe that they would not be introducing conflict. After a few years of arguments on the block grant, a wedge would be driven between Scotland and England. The SNP would whip it up and pour petrol on the flames. [An Hon. Member: "North Sea oil."] The SNP would do all it could to make it appear that the British Parliament was somehow doing down the Scots.
The hon. Member who called out "North Sea oil" obviously did not hear the speech of the right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), who said that the 66 per cent. of the oil which is off the Shetlands would not be claimed for Scotland. That was one of the more amazing things that we have heard; we were told that there would be home rule for the Shetlands, the Hebrides and the Isle of Arran if they wished it, but that the SNP would not claim the oil if the Shetlanders decided that they wanted nothing to do with an independent Scotland.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Wells): Order. This point was made in the previous debate when we were discussing the Shetland Isles. It is not in order in this debate.

Mr. Henderson: rose—

The Temporary Chairman: Order, The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene on a point which the Chair has ruled to be out of order.

Mr. Sproat: The Minister of State gave one of the most inadequate answers that we have ever heard, and he was at his worst when it was pointed out to him that it was surely unacceptable to everyone that Scottish Members in Westminster could vote on matters affecting England but that English Members could not vote on Scottish matters. It was clear that the Minister had no answer.
3.45 a.m.
I am not proposing a solution to this problem, which is inevitable with a constitutional monstrosity like this. But it shows that the bitterness engendered in England at the thought that Scottish


Members could tell Englishmen how to educate their children but that the reverse process would not be possible would grow and fester. It would lead to more cracks in the unity of the country. If the number of Scottish Members here were cut from 71 to, say, 56, the SNP would welcome that as the start of the disengagement of Scotland from the United Kingdom. Whatever is done in this lunatic Bill, we shall finish up worse off than we started.

Mr. Fairbairn: Is it not even more absurd? Not only would Scots Members here be able to discuss such things as the education of Englishmen; they could not discuss the education of Scotsmen. They could not discuss anything Scottish here.

Mr. Sproat: That is a strong point. At the next election, I shall have to tell my constituents that I shall not be able to discuss Aberdeen education at Westminster but that I shall be able to discuss education in Surrey, that I shall be able to do nothing about roads in Aberdeen but I shall be able to do a lot about the Dartford Tunnel.

Mr. Raison: I hesitate to take issue with so eminent a lawyer as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), but the Bill allows us to discuss and legislate about all these things. There are concurrent powers. This House will be able to pass any Bill—Government or Private Members'—about Scottish affairs that it does at the moment. But all these things can be done by the Assembly and the Executive as well. That shows the utter nonsense of the whole thing.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is right—

Mr. Gordon Wilson: What—both of them?

Mr. Sproat: No—my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury is right in theory; my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) is right in practice. We could legislate here about Scottish education but under Clause 18(2) the Assembly could wipe out what we do. Even if we passed legislation on a subject on which the Assembly was not also competent to legislate, it could within 24 hours repeal it.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) made a good point, that a private Member could spend months putting legislation through the House only to find the very next day that it went up in a puff of smoke.

Sir David Renton: Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that under Clause 18(2) the Assembly could repeal the Act of Union and that this House thereafter could repeal the Act passed by the Assembly?

Mr. Sproat: I bow to the knowledge of my right hon. and learned Friend, but I think that he will find that under Schedule 2, which relates to Clause 18, the Assembly could not repeal the Act of Union. But the mere fact that we can discuss these things shows the constitutional quagmire into which we are being compelled to descend. No one can say with certainty that the Bill will result in the break-up of the United Kingdom, but no one can deny that it will place the unity of the Kingdom at risk. We should therefore reject it.

Mr. Dalyell: There is another serious point. This argument on the legal issue arose in similar form about five hours ago. It is a matter of substance, not simply of debate. May we have some time next week a considered statement by one of the Law Officers?

Mr. Charles Morrison: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat has brought home forcefully that the Bill will soon create unbelievable chaos if it becomes an Act.
I wanted to start this Committee stage by amending the Long Title. Owing to custom and precedent, that was not allowed, though we have a chance to amend it at the end of our consideration of the Bill, if ever the end is reached. Given the existence of the Long Title, the clause seems entirely superfluous, but if there had to be a preliminary clause I am amazed that it should be one that can cause such controversy. It has been suggested that the easy way out for the Government would be to drop the clause. That is what they should do, because there would be no adverse effects on the later parts of the Bill.
If it were not for for the determination of the Scottish nationalists to create


disunity, I suppose that it would be possible to legislate for devolution without disunity, but it would have to be in the context of constitutional change which would bring some benefit to all parts of the United Kingdom and all people. It would also have to be on the understanding that constitutional change specifically for one or more parts of the United Kingdom was bound to have implications for the rest. The Bill unamended lives up to neither requirement.
If I were legislating particularly for devolution to Scotland or Wales, I would not do it in the way the Bill proposes. I would set out to lay a foundation. We are moving into a totally unknown area. I would say that we intended to start slowly and progress, seeing how things developed.
If it were too late for such an approach, the only alternative would be to legislate to provide a structure which was comprehensive and had lasting value, one which would survive the test of time. The provisions of the Bill are the worst of all worlds. They are a bad compromise and are full of muddy waters. They are neither a foundation nor a complete structure. They will not satisfy the Scots or the Welsh, but they will upset the English.
The English will feel, if the Bill is enacted, that it is providing some benefit for Scotland and Wales which at present the English do not have. It is bound to cause disunity. I see no way of amending the Bill to alter that situation. In consequence, I, like virtually everyone else, will join those who will vote against the clause.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: This is the first opportunity I have had to speak on the substance of the Bill. I am glad that the nature of Clause 1 gives me the chance to touch on a wide variety of points. I suppose that, essentially, what the Government are trying to do is to establish an entrenched clause which will stipulate that the unity of the kingdom is not to be affected.
I listened carefully to the speech of the Minister of State, who, I am sure, is sincere in his belief that the unity of the kingdom will not be affected and that in some way, as he said, diversity will lead to greater unity. That is his view. In his speech there was one phrase that

I have seldom heard before in this Chamber. I believe that he will come to regret uttering it. He said, when stumped by an intervention from one of my hon. Friends, that that only proved the dangers of going into clauses in detail. I am sure that I wrote down the words accurately.
I am sure, because I have some regard for the Minister of State, that he did not mean precisely what he said. Nevertheless, those words reveal the attitude that has been struck by the Government Front Bench in this debate. What they have sought to do is to fob off the Committee with an assertion, an expression of opinion on the part of the Government, that the Bill does not affect the unity of the United Kingdom. But when they have been interrogated on the detail as to whether it will have that result Ministers have immediately taken refuge in phrases like "It is very dangerous to go into clauses in detail."
It is precisely the application of this general principle in detail that is the measure of whether the unity of the kingdom will be fragmented. The hon. Gentleman has fallen into what can only be described as the mystique of the Dispatch Box. Some of us who have had the experience of talking from the Dispatch Box know how well one can fall into the trap of becoming convinced that words are deeds, plans are facts and assertions are reality. When one is provided with a beautifully typed brief with a little red ribbon in the corner things begin to take; on that hue. The statement in the clause that the Bill does not affect the unity of the United Kingdom is nothing more than an expression of opinion. None of us can be certain whether the Bill will affect that unity. We can only form a judgment.
What has been striking during the debate is that no one in the Committee has suggested that the unity of the United Kingdom will not be affected other than the Minister. This is a place where opinions are expressed and judgments formed, and the weight of opinion and the judgments that the Minister has heard must demonstrate that his expression of opinion is not that of the Committee.
4.0 a.m.
Before coming to the specific amendments, I should like to comment on two


remarkable speeches. One was made by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), who spoke with great power and conviction. However, he made one point which I found rather disturbing. He said that he did not care one way or the other about the principle of United Kingdom unity. Indeed, he took the more expedient, pragmatic view that if it paid off for the people of Bedwellty in terms of support, subsidy and so on, he was for it, but if the unity of the United Kingdom did not pay off in those terms, he was not particularly interested in it.
I find that argument of expediency disturbing. If Bedwellty expects to get from the unity of the United Kingdom rather more than it puts into it—that is, if its loyalty to the United Kingdom is solely to derive from the fact that it gets out more than it puts in—the other side of that argument is that other constituencies must put in more than they take out. There must be some transfer of subsidy to the poorer areas of the country. If the argument is to rest solely upon expediency, why should the better off areas help the less well off areas of Britain? The answer is that we do not consider these matters purely in terms of expediency. We consider them as part of what I might call the community of the United Kingdom. There are matters beyond expediency which keep a nation together. There are matters such as shared experience, history, pride and discipline or what I call patriotism.
I was sorry that the hon. Member for Bedwellty, whose speech I much admired, regarded the unity of the United Kingdom as a matter solely of how much his constituency, or Wales, got out of it. Our pride in the nationhood of Britain and the identity of the British people as a whole is just as important as the identity of the Welsh or the Scots—God bless them—or the expediency of what we can take out. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman underestimated the feeling of community among the British people as a whole.
The other speech on which I want to comment was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), who illustrated what he called the lunacy of Scottish Members being able to vote on matters which concerned

English seats but English Members not being able to vote on matters which concerned Scottish seats. I do not believe that he was technically correct. I think that we shall be able to debate and vote on matters which concern the whole of the United Kingdom.
The point that came through clearly was that there was confusion and that there was no clarity in the House of Commons on this matter. But throughout the imbroglios, the thickets, of debate that have gone on, the one thing that could not be argued was what the Prime Minister said—namely, that we were bringing government closer to the people. The kind of confusion which has been demonstrated here tonight manifestly proves one thing, if nothing else—that the Bill, far from bringing government closer to the people, will succeed only in confusing and, indeed, alienating them from the process of government itself.

Sir David Renton: I must apologise to the Committee for unwittingly adding to the confusion when I intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) with regard to the Act of Union. I am sorry if I unwittingly misled the Committee. I had overlooked the terms of Schedule 2, which is linked to Clause 19.

Mr. Griffiths: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Dalyell: As an hon. Member who often represents the views of the Police Federation, is the hon. Member aware that I, as a Scottish hon. Member, can vote on police matters affecting Bury St. Edmunds or the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Government Chief Whip but not on those matters affecting the police in my own constituency?

Mr. Griffiths: My impression is that it will be still possible for all hon. Members to vote on these matters but it will be manifestly absurd if we do so. These matters are concurrent and, therefore, the situation would be otiose. But it will certainly lead to conflict. The hon. Member is not correct to say that we shall be precluded from debate or vote.
I turn to Amendment No. 20 that stands in my name on the Notice Paper. It has three prongs. The first is to ensure that nothing in the Bill shall alter or


diminish the territorial or constitutional identity of the United Kingdom. I accept that there is no prospect—at least not yet—of any diminution in the territorial identity of the United Kingdom. But it is possible that some people are minded to think in terms of some territorial alterations. There is no real anxiety on that score, but it is impossible to imagine that the constitutional identity of the United Kingdom is untouched by the Bill. If it were not touched there would be no point in the Bill, for its purpose is somehow to give the Scots and the Welsh the feeling that the constitution is being altered in their favour. If that were not the purpose there would be no point in introducing the Bill. It must make changes but in what will it make changes? By definition, it must make changes in the constitution of the United Kingdom. Nothing can alter the fact that the Bill changes the constitutional identity of the United Kingdom. It should not do so but it does. On that ground alone it would be best for the amendment to be accepted.
The second prong of the amendment is that the Bill shall not affect the sovereignty of the Monarch in Parliament in all parts of the United Kingdom. I ask the Lord President a direct question. Was the Queen consulted? There can be no doubt that the Monarchy is one of the greatest assets of our country. It is an enormous international asset which attracts affection, esteem and pride and is an expression of the unity of our people.
The Government no doubt will tell us that the Bill does not affect the Monarchy. That is their opinion but the first person to be consulted should be the Monarch herself. The Lord President should tell the House whether the incumbent Monarch was consulted about this matter which could touch upon the prerogative and unitary character of the Monarchy. He has a duty to advise the House of the views that he obtained.
As many of my hon. Friends have said, the Bill is a recipe for conflict, and because of that it will affect the unity of the people. I should like to illustrate why I believe that is so.
The Bill sets up for the first time a Scottish Parliament and a Scottish Prime

Minister, and it endows them with very great powers. However, having given them great powers and great prestige, it then takes them away again by confining and devaluing their activities within a whole trellis-work of Westminster and Whitehall vetoes. That is the nature of the Bill. The powers are given with one hand but they get taken away with the other—that is the Minister's own argument—if the United Kingdom Parliament as a whole determines that that should be done.
Not only can the decisions of these prestigious new Scottish bodies be judged, presumably by some Sassenach, to be ultra vires. They can also be overruled by Ministers in London, who may certify under the Bill that the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Executive are in conflict with United Kingdom policy. Ministers may certify that this prestigious Scottish Prime Minister is in conflict with Her Majesty's Government's international obligations on, for example, fishing, oil, EEC drivers' hours and many other things, and that the actions of the Scots are in conflict with them.
Then again, Ministers may certify that the actions of the Scots are incompatible with the economic and financial decisions of the Cabinet on, for example, taxation, interest rates or pay policy. They may certify that the actions of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive are out of step with the Government's social priorities—trade unions, pensions or welfare.
Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that in matters of this kind, where the Scottish Parliament, being elected democratically, and the Scottish Executive, bearing responsibility in public, reach decisions on matters that touch on, for example, drivers' hours, fishing policy or trade unions, and then the United Kingdom Minister issues a certificate saying that they are ultra vires or that they are contrary to policy, there will not immediately be a clash between the Scottish and the United Kingdom authority?

Mr. Peter Emery: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would take his point a stage further, because in that conflict between the Scottish Assembly and the British Parliament is exactly where the Scottish nationalists see themselves as being able to pursue their policy


of obtaining an independent Scotland. It is that which must be shown up very clearly.

Mr. Griffiths: I cannot imagine anything than is more helpful to the Scottish nationalists than a conflict of that kind. That is precisely why they are so enthusiasticaly supporting the Bill.
However, there is also the political point. Very frequently, the elected Members of a Scottish Assembly, faced with very great pressures from their electors on, for example, matters of education or transport, will be in a position in which they may be overruled on vital matters by a Parliament at Westminster dominated by their political opponents. We could well have a nationalist-dominated or a Labour-dominated Scottish Assembly, or indeed a Conservative-dominated Assembly, but the United Kingdom Parliament might well be ruled by another party.
What is to happen if a Labour majority in the Scottish Parliament arrives at one conclusion and is then overruled by a Conservative majority in the United Kingdom Parliament? What is to be the position of the Scottish Members of the House of Commons? What is to be the position of a Scottish Labour Member of the Westminster Parliament if a Labour majority in the Scottish Assembly, very often consisting of Labour Members from his own constituency, has arrived at one view, and then he is whipped through the Lobbies in this place to overrule its conclusion in matters affecting his own constituency. That is a completely impossible position for any politician to be put in and it is bound to result in the most severe conflict. Deliberately to build such conflicts into our constitution is far more likely to inflame than to damp down the passions of Scottish nationalism. The mere existence of seprarate foci of election power is bound to provide new opportunities for those who will stick at nothing to fragment the United Kingdom.
4.15 a.m.
Another reason why the Bill affects the unity of the United Kingdom, regardless of any assertion that may be made by the Government, is that it is unfair to the English. It is hard enough that the Scots and the Welsh are to have virtual home rule in health, housing, planning, education and water while the English

are not, but what is worse is that the Scots and the Welsh are to continue sending to Westminster a disproportionately large number of Members who will be able, as they do at present from time to time, to foist laws upon England that the English do not want.
I am sorry to say it but there will be an English backlash. Many of us know and have much regretted that over the years there has occasionally been an anti-Irish feeling on building sites and on the shop floors of factories. We have all seen it in terms of a nasty prejudice that makes its way into the vernacular of working language, which has often produced friction on the job between one man and another. I regret to say it, but I believe that the English, perhaps in times of unemployment, perhaps when taxes are rising aaginst them, or when they find that Scottish Members come here and deal with English affairs while the reverse cannot be achieved, will effect a backlash that will result in prejudice and personal violence against the Scots. I very much hope that that will not happen, but I believe that the Government are opening the door to occurrences of violence which none of us wishes to foresee.
The Bill will disunite the kingdom because it is financial nonsense. The Scottish and Welsh Parliaments, as I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) said, are to have representation without taxation. Their's is the power and the glory to spend, but they will have no means of collecting any income except by haggling with Whitehall over the size of a block grant from someone else's budget. There can be no greater temptation to financial irresponsibility than a scheme that gives elected politicians control over what goes out but no responsibility over what is taken in. That is inviting financial irresponsibility.
I cannot believe that a Whitehall-financed Scottish Government will choose to augment its income by surcharging Scottish local authorities that are most likely of its own political colour rather than demanding a larger share of the Westminster cake and I suspect, the lion's share of the oil revenues.
In all these ways the Bill divides the kingdom. I hope very much that the Minister, whose personal commitment to


the Bill is self-evident and no doubt sincere, will take note of the fact that from every quarter of the Chamber there has come condemnation of Clause 1.
I hope that the Minister will not say that, regardless of the argument and the anxieties expressed by Members of all political complexions, the Government's opinion will prevail. If he does, he will be saying that his assertion—it can be no more than that—must prevail, no matter what else is said. I hope that he will not do that and that the cluase will fall.

Mr. Aitken: Many hours ago when my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) so ably moved the amendment, he asked certain questions and made a number of devastating criticisms of Clause 1. Those questions and criticisms have not been answered. It must be most demoralising for the occupants of the Treasury Bench to face those questions and then to hear such a barrage of criticism from their own supporters who have attacked the nonsense of this Bill.
Line 2 of Clause 2 is a blatant untruth that will make liars of us all if we vote for it tonight. It cannot be true to say that the provisions of the Bill do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom. The best one can say of the Minister of State, who tried to answer the debate with singular ineptitude, was that he sought to invent a new method of conjugating verbs. Instead of using the present indicative tense, he used the present optimistic tense. He "hoped" that various provisions of the Bill might not affect the unity of the kingdom. But the seeds of conflict exist and they have been referred to by speaker after speaker in all parts of the Committee.
Let me pick up one point which was put to the Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby but was not answered. It concerns the allocation of block grant. As the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) stressed, the first tussles, bitternesses and areas of conflict are likely to arise on the subject of money. Scotland and Wales already pay far less per head in taxation than do the people of England and they receive far more per head in terms of public expenditure. We cannot face the

inevitable prospect of seeing that gap widen still further without expecting further conflicts to occur.
The disunity has already begun. It is not a hypothetical theory put forward in this Committee. The fact that it is creating conflict is illustrated by what is happening in microcosm in respect of the English, Welsh and Scottish Tourist Boards over allocation of funds. I believe that that conflict will be repeated in the Assembly if ever it comes into existence.
I have recently seen a letter written to the Secretary of State for Trade by the Chairman of the Northumbrian Tourist Board, Councillor Colin Gray. He presides over tourism in the counties of Cleveland, Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear, an area with a population slightly larger than the population of Wales. The letter refers to an overgenerous allowance of English taxpayers' money already allocated to the Scottish and Welsh Tourist Boards. Whereas the English Tourist Board receives from the Government a mere £72 per head, the Scottish Tourist Board receives £228 per head and the Welsh Tourist Board £281 per head.
Despite those figures, the Secretary of State for Trade, in accordance with the devolution proposals, had the effrontery to indicate in a letter dated 17th November 1976 that he proposed to increase those disparities still further and intended to diminish English representation on the central British Tourist Authority. The Secretary of State said he was doing this on the ground that there was a strongly held belief in some quarters that Scotland and Wales did not get a fair crack of the whip on tourist spending. That is an indication of the kind of trouble to come, and it could provoke an English backlash.
The Chairman of the Northumbrian Tourist Board wrote a robust letter to the Secretary of State, which ended:
I only hope that in the detailed application of devolution we are not going to copy the United Nations and give Uganda the same voting rights as the USA in the General Assembly. Over 45 million people in England must surely have the right to greater representation than the 5·22 million people in Scotland and the 2·7 million people in Wales. Even at the level of emotional nationalisation, I do not recall Owen Glendower ever stating that one Welshman was the equal of 18


Englishmen, or Black Douglas claiming that one Scot was the equal of nine Englishmen.
That is a letter of justified complaint. It is the type of letter that we shall hear and see more of if these Assemblies come into existence.
We have heard a great deal about bitterness and conflict. Who will ever forget the extraordinary clash last night between the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes)? Who will readily forget the acidic exchanges between the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) and the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) this afternoon? Already friend is being set against friend. We shall see different region set against different region. I believe that this clause, and the whole Bill, will set the British people against each other.
The Bill has as it roots a misguided and craven policy of appeasement towards Members of the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru. Not since Neville Chamberlain came back from Munich waving that meaningless and mendacious piece of paper has there been a more ignominious example of appeasement than the clause and the Bill. I hope that we vote it down tonight.

Mr. John Smith: I intervened earlier but subsequently several right hon. and hon. Members have made points of detail on some of the amendments to which they spoke. I would like to refer briefly to some of them.
The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) referred in detail to some of the amendments that he moved and suggested some embellishments, additions and substitutions to Clause 1. One of the points the right hon. Gentleman raised concerned the tense used in the phraseology of Clause 1. We believe that the present tense is appropriate for a preliminary declaratory statement of the effect of the Bill.
Some of the right hon. Gentleman's other suggestions were in the form of embellishments. [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members will allow me to develop just three sentences without strident interruptions.
Among the right hon. Gentleman's embellishments was the substitution of "sovereignty" and "competence" for "supreme authority". At the end of the

day we have made it clear that this is bound to be a declaration of principle. The words which are there are clear. I rebut entirely the charge that there was any inaccuracy or untruthfulness in them.
There is not a great deal of difference between the arguments for "do" or "shall".

Mr. Graham Page: The Minister has told the Committee firmly that this is a declaratory statement. How can he be certain that the courts will interpret it that way, even with the assistance of the Attorney-General? A statement of this sort at the beginning of a Bill is so extraordinary and unusual that the Minister cannot tell how the Courts will interpret it.

Mr. Smith: I do not see how it is possible for anyone to anticipate the judicial interpretation of any Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there have been declaratory principles in other Bills.
The hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) made some points. After he complained about not having had a ministerial reply to them, I find that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not stayed to hear a reply. In any event, I do not think he developed a very precise argument.
Since the hon. and learned Gentleman is interested in the legal position, there is not one Act of Union but two. There are two Acts of Union and one treaty. The hon. and learned Gentleman developed some arguments that were not really relevant to the amendments that we are discussing.
4.30 a.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) put forward a beguiling argument to the effect that I should accept some amendments. Unfortunately, he left me in the dark about which amendments he favoured. He referred to the importance of asserting the unity of the United Kingdom. I respectfully say to him that passing the clause unamended would have much the same effect. I thank him for his kind remarks.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) wanted reference made to the Prerogative of the Monarchy. As I said during the Second Reading debate, Her Majesty's Prerogative is not


affected by the Bill any more than is Parliament's sovereignty. As that is so clearly understood, it is unnecessary to add that reference to the clause.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) committed the gaffe of the evening by referring to United Kingdom courts in England and Scottish courts in Scotland. For someone who claims a close relationship with Scotland to make such a blunder as to confuse the courts of England with the courts of the United Kingdom shows such lack of knowledge and appreciation of the existence of institutions within the United Kingdom that it is no wonder that his other judgments on the Bill are misguided.

We have discussed the clause and the amendments at length and in detail. I answered the general arguments earlier, and I hope that these few remarks will help hon. Members who addressed themselves to particular amendments to feel that they have been considered. I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 151.

Division No. 39.] 
AYES
[4.32 a.m.


Aitken, Jonathan
Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pink, R. Bonner


Banks, Robert
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Biffen, John
Hurd, Douglas
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Biggs-Davison, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Raison, Timothy


Blaker, Peter
James, David
Rathbone, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Brittan, Leon
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rhodes James, R.


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Kinnock, Nell
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Buck, Antony
Knox, David
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Budgen, Nick
Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Bulmer, Esmond
Le Marchant, Spencer
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Luce, Richard
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Channon, Paul
Macfarlane, Neil
Sainsbury, Tim


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Clegg, Walter
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Shepherd, Colin


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Shersby, Michael


Cope, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Silvester, Fred


Crouch, David
Marten, Neil
Sims, Roger


Dalyell, Tam
Mather, Carol
Sinclair, Sir George


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mawby, Ray
Sproat, Iain


Durant, Tony
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mayhew, Patrick
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Emery, Peter
Mendelson, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Farr, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Tebbit, Norman


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mills, Peter
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moate, Roger
Urwin, T. W.


Goodhart, Philip
Molyneaux, James
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Goodhew, Victor
Monro, Hector
Viggers, Peter


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Warren, Kenneth


Griffiths, Eldon
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Weatherill, Bernard.


Grist, Ian
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
wiggin, Jerry


Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Winterton, Nicholas


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Neave, Airey
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neubert, Michael
Younger, Hon George


Hannam, John
Newton, Tony



Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Osborn, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hawkins, Paul
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Nigel Lawson and


Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Richard (Workington)
Mr. Peter Morrison.




NOES


Archer, Peter
Bidwell, Sydney
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Armstrong, Ernest
Bishop, E. S.
Campbell, Ian


Ashton, Joe
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Canavan, Dennis


Atkinson, Norman
Boardman, H.
Cartwright, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Clemitson, Ivor


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cohen, Stanley


Bates, Alf
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Coleman, Donald


Bean, R. E.
Buchan, Norman
Concannon, J. D.




Conlan, Bernard
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rooker, J. W.


Cook, Robin F.(Edin C)
Janner, Greville
Roper, John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
John, Brynmor
Ross, Rt Hon W.(Kilmarnock)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rowlands, Ted


Crawford, Douglas
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sillars, James


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Kaufman, Gerald
Silverman, Julius


Davidson, Arthur
Kerr, Russell
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lamborn, Harry
Small, William


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Deakins, Eric
Loyden, Eddie
Stallard, A. W.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Luard, Evan
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
McCartney, Hugh
Stoddart, David


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
MacCormick, Iain
Strang, Gavin


Dempsey, James
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Doig, Peter
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Dormand, J. D.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Eadie, Alex
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thompson, George


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
MacKenzie, Gregor
Tinn, James


English, Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Tomlinson, John


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McNamara, Kevin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Madden, Max
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Magee, Bryan
Ward, Michael


Flannery, Martin
Marks, Kenneth
Watkins, David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Watkinson, John


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Watt, Hamish


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Welsh, Andrew


Gilbert, Dr John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
White, Frank R.(Bury)


Golding, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
White, James (Pollok)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Grocott, Bruce
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Noble, Mike
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Gordon
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Harper, Joseph
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ovenden, John
Woodall, Alec


Hatton, Frank
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Henderson, Douglas
Penhaligon, David



Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Prescott, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Huckfield, Les
Reid, George
Mr. Ted Graham and


Hunter, Adam
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mr. Peter Snape.


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Roderick, Caerwyn

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed, in Clause I, page 1, line 9, leave out from second "Kingdom" to end and add:
but provide for the devolution of powers which shall not hereafter be subject to interference or erosion by the Government or

Parliament of the United Kingdom, save with the consent of the Assemblies hereinafter mentioned."—[Mr. Gordon Wilson.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 146.

Division No. 40.]
AYES
[4.45 a.m.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Reid, George
Welsh, Andrew


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Sillars, James
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Crawford, Douglas
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald



Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


MacCormick, Iain
Thompson, George
Mrs. Winifred Ewing and


Penhaligon, David
Watt, Hamish
Mr. Douglas Henderson.




NOES


Archer, Peter
Cartwright, John
Dempsey, James


Armstrong, Ernest
Channon, Paul
Doig, Peter


Atkinson, Norman
Clemitson, Ivor
Dormand, J. D.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol)
Eadie, Alex


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cohen, Stanley
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Bates, Alf
Coleman, Donald
Emery, Peter


Bean, R. E.
Concannon, J. D.
English, Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Conlan, Bernard
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Bishop, E. S.
Cook, Robin F.(Edin C)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Flannery, Martin


Boardman, H.
Cryer, Bob
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dalyell, Tam
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davidson, Arthur
Gilbert, Dr John


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Golding, John


Buchan, Norman
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Graham, Ted


Budgen, Nick
Deakins, Eric
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Campbell, Ian
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Grocott, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)




Hardy, Peter
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Skinner, Dennis


Harper, Joseph
McNamara, Kevin
Small, William


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Madden, Max
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Hatton, Frank
Magee, Bryan
Sproat, Iain


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Marks, Kenneth
Stallard, A. W.


Huckfield, Les
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stoddart, David


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Strang, Gavin


Hunter, Adam
Maynard, Miss Joan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Mendelson, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tinn, James


Janner, Greville
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tomlinson, John


John, Brynmor
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Noble, Mike
Ward, Michael


Kaufman, Gerald
Oakes, Gordon
Watkins, David


Kerr, Russell
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Watkinson, John


Kershaw, Anthony
Ovenden, John
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Kinnock, Neil
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
White, James (Pollok)


Lamborn, Harry
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Prescott, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Loyden, Eddie
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Luard, Evan
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


McCartney, Hugh
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Rooker, J. W.
Woodall, Alec


McElhone, Frank
Roper, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)



McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Rowlands, Ted
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


MacKenzie, Gregor
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Mr. Peter Snape and


Maclennan, Robert
Silverman, Julius
Mr. Joseph Ashton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman(Mr. Murton): Before I call any right hon. or hon. Member I would point out that in the course of our proceedings on amendments to Clause 1, I suggested to one or two hon. Members —specifically, the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton)—that it would be appropriate to raise certain matters on Clause 1 stand part. On the other hand, although I do not wish to be unduly restrictive, I would point out that we have had a far-ranging debate on the amendments. I would therefore ask hon. Members in this debate not to repeat arguments which they have already advanced in debate on the amendments.

Sir David Renton: Speaking for myself, and I am sure for all hon. Members, Mr. Murton, I gladly welcome your ruling and will do my best not to repeat arguments which I have put before. The points that I wish to put are frankly drafting points, but important ones. This is an important clause and we should make an attempt even now to get it right. I have no intention of seeking to divide the Committee on the motion.
As the Minister of State said, this is a declaratory clause, and that is all that it is. The second sentence has been the subject of almost endless discussion and I do not propose now to deal with it.

But the first sentence has not been considered in detail. There are several points which we should try to adjust on Report.
The clause attempts to state the purpose of the Bill. That is a good thing to do, and something which has not been attempted often enough in the past. But if it is to be done, it is better that the purpose of the clause should be stated clearly and unambiguously. This first sentence does not achieve that purpose. Like the Long Title, it says of the Bill that its provisions
make changes in the government of Scotland and Wales".
But there is no Government of Scotland and Wales. There is no Government of Scotland; there is no Government of Wales. There is local government in both Scotland and Wales, but that is an entirely different concept. There is a Government of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty's Government, represented on the Front Bnch opposite. Therefore, to refer to the government of Scotland and Wales is a faux pas and should be recognised as such.
5.0 a.m.
My next criticism is of the use of the word "government". As we all know, as every sixth-former knows, it has two different meanings in our language. I suggest that the first, the narrower one which I have just used, is the correct one —for example "Her Majesty's Government" to describe the country's Executive.


The other meaning is very wide and too vague. It is not the best word for us to use in this important context.
I can best illustrate the two different meanings or uses of the word by reminding the Committee that the constitution of any mature democracy consists of—apart from the Head of State—four different parts: the electorate; the legislature, part of which at any rate is democratically elected; the Government —that is, the Executive; and the judiciary. When we talk of parliamentary government, as we so often proudly do, we mean that the Government are answerable to Parliament. We do not, or should not, mean that Parliament carries on the government.
It is true that the Government, besides being answerable to Parliament, are dependent upon Parliament for voting the money and passing the laws without which the Executive Government of the country cannot be carried on. But to describe, as the Bill does, at any rate in relation to Scotland, the legislature and the Executive as the Government is confusing.
But now I must come clean with the Committee. I must concede that there are famous precedents for this confusing use of the word. The Government of Ireland Act and the Act dealing with the government of India are two examples, and there are others. However, we in Parliament are not bound by the mistakes of our predecessors. Indeed, we have a duty to put matters right, whatever solemnity they may have acquired, and especially when we are making changes of the great importance that we are making in the Bill.
There is a simple way of getting the matter right. I tabled an amendment which would have achieved it. All that we have to do is to omit from lines 7 and 8 on page 1 the words
changes in the government of
and insert the simple words "constitutional changes affecting". Both defects that I have described would then be simply overcome.
I shall try again on Report. I shall table the amendment again, and I hope to have better luck. Meanwhile, I can but regret the serious defects which

remain in this important clause, which will no doubt be allowed to stand part.

Mr. Emery: I have sat through about seven-and-a-half hours of the nine hours of debate on the amendments. While much of what I have to say may be critical of the Government, I begin by paying tribute to the Lord President, who is in charge of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is often open to criticism but I feel that the way in which he has sat through the whole of the debate when he is obviously suffering from a severe cold is worthy of favourable comment. We thank him for doing so.
I had taken a slightly different point from that taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) not having consulted him about the wording of the Long Title and the first phrase in the clause. My suggestion was that instead of the words:
Provide for changes in the government of Scotland and Wales.
we should substitute:
Provide for the partial government of Scotland and Wales.
There is no Government, as such, of Scotland and Wales other than in this Parliament. I was not being quite as obtuse as my right hon. and learned Friend over the use of the word "government". It is important that we indicate, as early as possible in the Bill, that we are concerned only with partial government, if "government" is the right word.
Part of my case is that never before, under any declaratory clause or statement of intent in a measure, will there be such rapid proof that the declaration or intent is wrong. I do not doubt the intent of the Government. I believe that if the Bill is passed and operates for three or four years we shall find the unity of the United Kingdom being broken. During my political life I have fought for the greater unification of areas of government. I was the joint founder of the United Europe Club at Oxford in 1947. I worked for the unification of Central Africa in the old Federation. I have attempted to work for unification in parts of Asia Minor. It is a desperate position to be in to be a Member of Parliament and to see the balkanisation of the United Kingdom.
I realise that the Minister of State holds his views honestly but I cannot understand how any national assembly which will become a national parliament can be expected to carry on without demanding absolute powers. I do not understand how any historian or student of the Commonwealth, or any other part of the world where a central government has given a degree of independence, can fail to be aware that that independence has been continually stretched until absolute independence has been demanded and obtained. That happened with Stormont. The parliamentary structure has been taken away and Stormont has not progressed. Historically we have not seen what the Government suggest that they will be able to bring about with national Assemblies in Wales and in Scotland.
Will the Government not listen to the siren voices of the Scottish nationalists who make no pretence about this being the first step towards obtaining an independent Scotland? From what I know of my own party—the Conservative Party—and from what I have seen of the divisions within the Labour Party, it is clear that, with a party structure in the Scottish Assembly, the Members will very soon make the same kind of demands as are being made by the nationalists, because they will be frustrated from being able to carry out the duties which they would wish to carry out.
We see that trend in local government now, particularly in the greater extremities of this country. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has expressed views about a greater degree of delegation to such areas. If that is happening in local government, surely it will be accentuated when the Assemblies are created.
During the seven hours that I have spent in the Chamber, I have heard very little support for the Government. That must be a worrying factor for them.
I am concerned that the view may be taken by the Opposition—that the Bill can be corrected and made acceptable—is becoming less tenable. I believe that the Bill is a dismal failure and is doomed to become an instrument for what we do not wish to see brought about. Therefore, I feel that I must make my position absolutely clear at the start.

Mr. Dalyell: I echo the compliments paid by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) to my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council who has been present almost continuously from the beginning of the debate. However, I am reminded of the situation 10 years ago when very few of his Cabinet colleagues came into the Chamber to express solidarity with the late Dick Crossman on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. I should have thought that there would be a few token appearances by other members of the Cabinet on a major Government Bill. That is by the by.
A great deal has been said about the representation of 71 Scottish Members of Parliament and their lack of responsibility for matters affecting England on which their votes may or may not be decisive. After 13¼ hours, I still have not heard any answer to that problem. Frankly, I do not expect to hear any answer, for the very good reason that there is no answer to that problem. It is the rock on which Mr. Gladstone's first and second Home Rule Bills perished. There is no answer.

Mr. Foot: Mr. Foot indicated dissent.

Mr. Dalyell: If I am mistaken, let that answer be forthcoming during the debate on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

5.15 a.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to be able to make a brief contribution to the debate at this hour in the morning. I have sat in the Chamber for six hours with only a break for the last two Divisions. I have listened to other contributions with care, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) that not a word has been uttered in favour of the Bill except from the Treasury Bench. Every speaker from the Government side has been critical of the principle of the Bill and the way in which it is being introduced, although I admit that some flattering comments were made about the case that the Minister endeavoured to put to the Committee.
When dealing with important constitutional changes such as these, inevitably one looks back to treaties and the Act of Union. Article I of that Act states:
That the two kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the first day of May


which shall be in the year one thousand seven hundred and seven and for ever after be united into one kingdom by the name of Great Britain.
That is an important article and the Government are to change that situation dramatically in the Bill and in the principle of the Clause which we are asked to allow to stand part of the Bill.
Article III states:
That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by one and the same Parliament to be stiled the Parliament of Great Britain.
Again a dramatic change is envisaged. The Government have not been as truthful as they should to the House and the nation.
An interesting letter appeared in the Yorkshire Post on 10th January. It was written by Donald Barraclough, a Yorkshireman who has lived in Scotland for 22 years and worked in local government in Scotland for about 15 years. He wrote:
Since the demand for Devolution became the cry of the Scottish Nationalists I have often said 'Why not Home Rule for Yorkshire?' What has to be realised is that devolution is only a step on the way to complete separation, and that the costs of devolution will be met by Westminster, that is the British taxpayer.
How right my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) was to say that the Bill is the first step on the way to separation and how it will totally destroy the concept of a united kingdom and destroy so much of what has been built up since 1707.
The letter in the Yorkshire Post also stated:
Devolution must not be confused with decentralisation from which Scotland has already received some benefit, expects and has been promised more. She has 71 MPs at Westminster—a much higher representation than south of the border, so why the demand for a legislative assembly of 142 members plus a Civil Service staff of over 2,000? This unproductive expenditure will fall on Westminster at a time when Britain has an economic crisis which according to the Prime Minister will take ten years for industrial recovery.
Those are valid and important points.
Having not spoken in the debate before and having not caught Mr. Speaker's eye on Second Reading, I am pleased to make this brief contribution tonight. As a Member elected to the House 270 years after the Act of Union, I have pledged myself publicly to uphold the Act of Union and

to vote against the Bill at every stage when a vote takes place.
Devolution, with all the over-government that it will create, is a sinister development which politicians of all parties should oppose wholeheartedly. My view is shared and has been expressed by many of my colleagues who have taken part in the debate. I was delighted when I heard the contribution of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), because he highlighted many of the dangers and sinister aspects of the Bill.
I repeat that devolution is threatening the unity of this country, which has been formed and formulated since 1707. In an age in which the process of government is already discredited and overburdened, it seems incredible that a Government of the United Kingdom should support the creation of yet another tier of bureaucracy. I say that as a totally unabashed Conservative. My party has traditionally been the party of the Union. I am proud to say that, and I shall repeat it during the next few months on many public platforms up and down the country. Long may the Conservative Party be the party of the Union. Not for nothing is it still affectionately called the Conservative and Unionist Party.
The Union is based upon two propositions. The first is that each section of the community of the whole United Kingdom is prepared to subordinate its will to the good of the whole United Kingdom. There is no doubt whatever that the establishment of a separate Parliament in Scotland will destroy that proposition and concept.
The second proposition is that the Union of the United Kingdom depends upon the supremacy of this Parliament. The establishment of whatever they like to be called in Edinburgh and in South Wales will certainly destroy the supremacy of the Westminster Parliament.
I say, therefore, that the Government have put forward a very bad Bill. It has been criticised roundly on all sides of the Committee. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) is not present in the Chamber. If he were present, he would probably support the opinion that I am about to express.
There are dangers and disadvantages in the party system because too often hon. Members' better instinct and better judgment are overruled by the Whips because of some overall philosophy or dogma that has been developed. There is no doubt that many Labour Members would be trooping through the Lobbies against the Bill if they had more courage or the courage of their convictions. I shall certainly be going through the appropriate Lobby to vote against the Bill on every possible occasion.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I have listened to the debates. I have heard not one speech in favour of the Bill. I am absolutely opposed to it. I am not prepared to legislate for a lot of nonsense, so I shall call a Division and vote against it.

Mr. Fairbairn: The question that we are asked is whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. The Committee ought to regard constitutional legislation with some responsibility. The clause is absolute legislative rubbish. The Minister of State was my learned junior on many occasions. Perhaps he may have learnt something from me. Legislation is a simple matter, and it is law and nothing else that we pass.
The clause consists of two sentences. The first sentence reads:
The following provisions of this Act make changes in the government of Scotland and Wales as parts of the United Kingdom.
Apart from the interpretation of government made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), that is an inadequate and false statement of fact. It has nothing to do with legislation. We do not have to have the effect of an Act. The effect of an Act is interpreted by the courts. That is called the effect of an Act. The effect of the Act is to make changes in all parts of the United Kingdom, not merely in Scotland and Wales. The first sentence is a false statement of fact.
The second sentence reads:
They do not affect"—
I am not quite sure who "they" are—
the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it.
That is a straight, fundamental and absolute falsehood. The whole purpose

of the Bill is to affect the supreme authority of Parliament. That is what it is all about. That is what the nationalists are all here for. Of course the Assemblies will be able to diminish the power and authority of Parliament. We start with a falsehood and end with a lie, and this is constitutional legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) read out the Act of Union. In fact, it got it right. It did not make a false statement as its proposition. If we left out Clause 1 it would make no difference whatever to the Bill. This is legislation. This is law. But this is not what should be in an Act of Parliament. It is false, it is wrong and it is unrealistic. I do not think that this is a good basis, whatever our views about how the government of this country should be reorganised, for starting on a constitutional charter.
Secondly, apart from Ireland, which has a special history, I think it is a historical fact that there is no country on earth and no people on earth who share the same land mass and speak the same language who have ever diminished or altered their method of government in this way. This is an important matter. There has been federalism and there have been situations arising the other way round, but I do not believe that on one land mass, apart from the lesson of Ireland, there has ever been such a diminution or alteration. That is a historical fact that should be considered when we are considering this constitutional change.
Thirdly—in this instance I merely take myself as an example—what I am presently empowered and entrusted to do in my constituency will be done by two other people in addition. The costs will be paid for not by my constituents but by the constituents of those who have not three representatives but one.

5.30 a.m.

Mr. Dalyell: Not "in addition to" but in most cases "instead of ".

Mr. Fairbairn: I agree with the phrase "instead of".

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. and learned Member will be made redundant.

Mr. Fairbairn: I shall be redundant, and down in Westminster will be all the ghost Members. But up in West Lothian there will be two or three people stomping


around doing the work that one Member now does. It is all a farce and it will be paid for—not by the Scottish or Welsh. but by the English.
I wish to make one other important point. If it is said that these arrangements will make government closer, cheaper, quicker and all the rest of it, it must be said that this Bill will not achieve those aims. The reason that it will not do so is that it will enlarge the number of elections, representatives and Departments of State. It will increase the amount of money that will be expended and the number of civil servants.
The clause begins with two sentences which compared with the rest of the Bill are simple but, as legislation, are superflous, as well as being manifest, deliberate and uncorrectable falsehoods. For that reason alone the clause should not be allowed to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Pym: It was inevitable that Part I of the Bill should attract substantial debate. Although it has the rather innocent heading of "Preliminary", it is a collection of a few assertions that have been challenged over a period of three or four days in Committee. They are assertions that go to the heart of the government of this country, and they have been represented during many hours of debate as being an inaccurate description of what is likely to happen. If anything like this measure becomes law, the clause must be criticised for its inaccuracy and for not representing the probability of what is to happen.
The debate on Amendment No. 16 was the first opportunity for the Committee to discuss the government of the United Kingdom as a whole and it indicated the anxiety of the House about the inherent dangers in the Bill. To be a British citizen and to belong to our country matters to every hon. Member, no matter for what constituency he may sit. There has been tension in the last 13 hours of debate, and that is a fair reflection of the anxiety that will grow in our country unless there are some dramatic changes in the Bill.
The way in which our country has developed over the centuries, particularly since the Act of Union and what has happened since, reminds us of the way in which we got over the separatism, if that is an accurate word, that existed

before and of how we developed and evolved into what was a Great Britain that was sympathetic to the feelings of the people of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. We know how each part of the United Kingdom has been able to retain its own identity and culture and yet has been able to be merged, in a thoroughly civilised way, into the United Kingdom as a whole. It can be said that we had a genius for bringing about this arrangement, which enabled Great Britain to act in a united way, while at the same time enabling the constituent parts of the kingdom to retain, develop and evolve their own particular cultures and ways of life.

Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman talks about "certain dramatic changes". What are these dramatic changes that he has in mind?

Mr. Pym: Some are on the Order Paper and more will go down. It remains to be seen what changes are to be made. One change might have been made by the Government's acceptance of the last amendment. Although it was a comparatively minor matter, it was a change that would have indicated that the Government were prepared to make some concessions.
I was speaking of what I believe to be a genuine and real anxiety in respect of what people fear may result from this Bill. There is a difference of view about what the effect on the unity of the United Kingdom will be.
During today's debates the Minister of State said it would enhance unity, but virtually every other hon. Member said the opposite. One can say that this is a matter of opinion but it may be too late when we really find out what the result will be.
I do not think the Minister gave a very good explanation for the existence of this clause. He described it as "declaratory" and fairly pointed out that other Acts have begun with a declaratory clause. None of them, I suspect, has enjoyed anything like the criticism that this one has.
In so far as it is declaratory it may be said to have very little effect on the Bill as a whole. Whether it is in the Bill seems to make very little difference. I suppose that it is in the Bill because


of the Government's desire to reassure people that the words in this clause are quite true.

Mr. Fairbairn: If the Minister of State was right, it would be absolute nonsense, because if it enhances the unity of the United Kingdom, it would change the unity of the United Kingdom. But since the Bill says that it will not do so, it cannot possibly enhance it.

Mr. Pym: That is a fair point to make. I am not persuaded that Clause 1 is a wise clause. Its intention may be to reassure, but I think that it is misleading, as practically every hon. Member has indicated. It is an attempt to lull the public into believing that these assertions are true when they are demonstrably challengeable.
The clause has given rise to a major debate on Scotland and Wales. It has also raised the major question of the number and, more important, the role of Members in this House representing constituencies in Scotland and Wales. Although Amendment No. 474 was not called today, I have no doubt that there will be other occasions later when we can discuss this matter. It is very important.
In his first intervention the Minister said that the Conservative Party had a party political interest. My goodness me, that is true! But this Bill is actually inspired by party political considerations on the part of the Government, and that is absolutely reprehensible and wrong.
There was practically no support for this clause. Indeed, many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee regard it as irrelevant. Its drafting and structure fly in the face of practically every recommendation of the committee presided over by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton).
This is an immensely unsatisfactory opening clause. It is not true or correct. But it is not of such importance that we ought to seek to strike it out. Even if we did that, the rest of the Bill would go on as though Clause 1 did not exist.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend referred to the number of Scottish Members in the House of Commons. Does not he agree that if the Government were acting in good faith

they would put forward a proposition for a reduction in the number? Although Scottish Members returned to the House of Commons would naturally participate in all our activities and debates, they would not have the undue influence they have on debates and legislation at present.

Mr. Pym: That might be a reasonable proposition in logic but it does not accord with what the Government judge to be to their political advantage. I do not think, therefore, that they will put forward proposals of that kind.
Anyone who has listened to the three days of debate on Part I of the Bill will be gravely concerned about the opinions expressed that the Bill represents a potential threat—some would go further—to the continuing unity of this kingdom. The House of Commons might have to fight much harder than it has fought during the last week or two for something so dear to its heart. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind and be as flexible as possible in making adjustments to the Bill to take away the danger that the House of Commons is not prepared to accept.

Mr. John Smith: I shall try to follow the example of my own Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Hutchison) in making a brief contribution to the debate. I do not promise to be so brief as he has been tonight. He expressed his usual robust and well-known opposition to the Bill and its works, and I understand his position.
The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) addressed himself to criticism of the word "government". The right hon. and learned Gentleman served on the Royal Commission on the Constitution and the Committee on the Preparation of Legislation, and I listened with particular care to what he said. I know that he is deeply interested in ensuring the accurate expression of Parliament's intention in the legislation it passes. It is refreshing to find a lawyer who is willing to challenge precedents in the way he did. He said that he would return to this matter on Report, and no doubt he will seek to put down an amendment on that occasion. We shall think about what he said between now and then, but I make no commitment.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) publicly pledged himself to go through the "No" Lobby as often as possible. That is an interesting observation, bearing in mind that the Committee will spend a great deal of its time considering Opposition amendments.
We have had a very long and full debate. Conservative Members seem to be obsessed with the views of the Scottish National Party. I reject the criticism that the declaration is misleading. It is a useful preliminary to the Bill, and on that basis I ask the House to accept it.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: Before the Minister sits down, will he say when I am likely to get an answer on the issue of representation without responsibility?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend will recollect that I referred in an earlier part of the debate to his contribution. He may not be satisfied with the answer he received, but I suspect that on a great many matters it will be hard to satisfy my hon. Friend. I gave the answer then. I see no need to repeat it.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 5.

Division No. 41.]
AYES
[5.45 a.m.


Archer, Peter
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Noble, Mike


Armstrong, Ernest
Gilbert, Dr John
Oakes, Gordon


Atkinson, Norman
Golding, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Ovenden, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Bates, Alf
Grocott, Bruce
Penhaligon, David


Bean, R. E.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Prescott, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Hardy, Peter
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bishop, E. S.
Harper, Joseph
Roderick, Caerwyn


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Rooker, J. W.


Boardman, H.
Hatton, Frank
Roper, John


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Huckfield, Les
Rowlands, Ted


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hunter, Adam
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Sillars, James


Buchan, Norman
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Silverman, Julius


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
John, Brynmor
Skinner, Dennis


Campbell, Ian
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Small, William


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Clemitson, Ivor
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Snape, Peter


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol)
Kaufman, Gerald
Stallard, A. W.


Cohen, Stanley
Kerr, Russell
Stott, Roger


Coleman, Donald
Lamborn, Harry
Strang, Gavin


Concannon, J. D.
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Conlan, Bernard
Loyden, Eddie
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cook Robin F. (Edin C)
Luard, Evan
Tinn, James


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McCartney, Hugh
Tomlinson, John


Cryer, Bob
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
McElhone, Frank
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Davidson, Arthur
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Ward, Michael


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
MacKenzie, Gregor
Watkins, David


Deakins, Eric
Maclennan, Robert
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
White, James (Pollok)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
McNamara, Kevin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Madden, Max
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Dempsey, James
Magee, Bryan
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Doig, Peter
Marks, Kenneth
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Dormand, J. D.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Eadie, Alex
Maynard, Miss Joan
Woodall, Alec


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)



Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Mr. Ted Graham and


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Mr. David Stoddart.


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)






NOES


Dalyell, Tam
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Emery, Peter
Newton, Tony
Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison and


Fairbairn, Nicholas

Mr. Nicholas Winterton.

To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Harper.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

NEW TOWNS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 67 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland),

That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Harper.]

Question agreed to.

NEW TOWNS (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to make provision as respects the revocation or variation of orders made under section 1, 2 or 5(1) of the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the said Act of this Session in respect of payment of compensation for loss of office to former members of a development corporation and of payment to a winding up body of any deficit arising from the winding up of a new town, and the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any surplus so arising.—[Mr. Harper.]

GENERAL PRACTITIONERS (DEPUTISING SERVICES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

5.55 a.m.

Mr. William Small: I have chosen to raise on the Adjournment the subject of general practitioners' deputising services, because they need examination. We should take a look at what is going on in most of these services. I have chosen to use copious notes for my speech in order that I may describe the picture as clearly, as pragmatically and as emotionlessly as possible.
I have discovered from my researches that there is no official deputising service

provided in Scotland or anywhere else in Britain by the National Health Service. Doctors are required to take reasonable steps to ensure continuity of treatment and they may delegate treatment to a partner, assistant or deputy.
The deputising services grew up in the 1960s, first in the major conurbations in England. Some of the services were professional while others were non-profit making services organised by the British Medical Association. The services provided deputies for general practitioners at times that are out of normal working hours. These services were not and are no part of any contract with the National Health Service. Consequently, the medical services Committee procedure can be invoked only in the event of a complaint against a patient's own doctor. It cannot be invoked against the deputising or against the deputy that it has provided.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that a doctor has no responsibility for his deputising service. It is not legally possible to impose any such vicarious responsibility on a general practitioner. That would be beyond the Secretary of State's powers. A medical services committee can investigate a complaint against a deputy only if he is already on the medical health board's list.
The agitation on 23rd February by Mrs. Still of Scotstoun aroused much Press comment in Scotland. All the Press took up the matter and continued to feature articles about the distress occasioned to Mrs. Still when she used the service. I shall give full details because this case was behind my decision to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
In February 1976, Mrs. Still's 20-year-old daughter died in distressing circumstances. She became ill during the night of 21st February and her condition worsened rapidly. On the evening of Sunday 22nd February Mrs. Still was so worried that she telephoned her family doctor and she was referred to another doctor as a deputy. She rang the telephone number of that doctor but he was not available, so Mrs. Still left details with the person who answered the telephone. A short time later the deputy doctor rang back, but, on hearing of Miss Still's complaint and her symptoms, was unwilling to come out. He said that they were


influenza symptoms and he arranged for a prescription to be collected from a Springburn chemist.
That is probably three miles away. Mrs. Still had to arrange for someone to collect the prescription and it was a further three hours before she was able to get the prescribed medicine for her daughter, whose condition was still deteriorating. She got her first capsule three hours after the prescription had been obtained.
In the morning, the daughter's condition had worsened further. Mrs. Still rang the doctor again and he came out quickly. As soon as he saw Miss Still's condition, he arranged for her immediate removal to hospital by ambulance. She was so ill that she was transferred on the same day to the intensive care unit of the Western General Infirmary where she died, despite all the efforts of the staff.
Subsequently, the cause of death was established as acute viral pneumonia and viral encephalitis. Mrs. Still wrote to me and alerted the Sunday Mail, which published an article protesting at the doctor's diagnosing by telephone. That is part of the reason for a deeper examination of the technique.
The newspaper quoted the chairman and secretary of the Greater Glasgow Health Board as saying that his advice to Mrs. Still was that she should make an official complaint to the board which would be fully examined.
I wrote to the Secretary of State enclosing a copy of the Sunday Mail article. He said that since a formal complaint had been made to the health board, it would be improper for him to comment upon the outcome. The procedure is private, but both parties have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State.
Following this distress and frustration, Mrs. Still was told by the board that it was too late to complain—that it was time barred. Eventually it was decided that her failure to lodge a complaint within six weeks was reasonable and it was referred to the chairman of the medical services committee.
In April. Mrs. Still received a letter from the board advising her that the chairman was not satisfied that the complaint disclosed a cause for complaint against the doctor, whose terms of refer-

ence did not preclude him from engaging a suitably-qualified deputy. That deputy had no contract with the board unless he was a GP on the board's list.
The terms of service did not prevent the GP from prescribing by telephone. I could go on in this vein, but suffice it to say that the Minister replied to my letter and said that there was no cause for action under the complaints procedure. The deputy was not on the board's list and the deputising service was not part of the NHS and so could not be investigated by the board's medical committee.
This feature is worth further study because of the reply from the Greater Glasgow Health Board:
As you will be aware, a statutory procedure exists governing complaints against general practitioners and the Health Board will be continuing to carry out these procedures as set out in Form SCP1 sent to you on 23 April 1976.
The letter is signed by J. Laing, the Administrator Primary Care.
The matter could be pursued by a civil action, but the medical profession is unlikely to lose.
The legal, theological and commercial meaning of the term "vicarious liability" is most complex. Where previous advocates have failed, how does one pursue a shadow who is apparently above the law? If lawyers could not do it, how could Mrs. Still pursue the case successfully? She is looking not for compensation but for justice and for some assurance that this kind of thing cannot happen again.
Diagnosis by telephone is growing. Someone in distress, faced with illness in the home, is in physical, emotional and environmental difficulty. We all act from instinct and impulse when trying to describe a condition to a doctor in an effort to get guidance. In those conditions, a telephone call must be treated as a shadow line between safety and danger.
Since doctors seem to be forsaking conventional treatment for prescription by telephone, the practice could develop systematically over the years and might not be just an emergency procedure. "Dial-a-diagnosis" is a distinct possibility. Emotional and other elements are necessarily ignored. A phone cannot read a thermometer or take a pulse. Like any other tool, it can be laid aside once


it has been used. There should be an immediate personal visit to make a deeper diagnosis.
Is this technique a process of rationalising the patient into scientific detachment? Is diagnosis being depersonalised, and are we moving from ethical to technical considerations in this area? If so, could the use of the phone be validated by some such contraption as the "black box" which is used in aircraft, by which data could be recorded as an aide memoire to safeguard the patient who might eventually want to take action to get the best treatment?
If we are to accept this new element, the acid test for the 6,000 doctors in Scotland is whether they would use it for members of their own family instead of consulting a colleague. The Department should analyse the use of the telephone and the inability to pursue cases successfully under the doctrine of vicarious liability, the prescribing doctor under the deputising service having immunity in his own right. One is pursuing a shadow.
I ask my hon. Friend to urge the Government to seek an early agreement with the profession about the control of deputising services, or, failing any agreement, to impose restrictions on them for the benefit of the citizen in need of treatment.

6.10 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): First. I should like to associate myself with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small) in expressing sympathy with Mrs. Still, of whose tragic loss of her daughter he has spoken. It is a feature of the House that some of the very important matters affecting people personally are raised in Adjournment debates—often at a similar hour.
I assure my hon. Friend that I and my ministerial colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, share his concern about the difficulties involved in the use by general practitioners of deputies who are not on the health boards' lists, particularly where these are provided by deputising services. In fairness to the British Medical Association, I should make it clear that the

deputy in this case was not provided by the BMA.
Over the years there have been a number of complaints to Ministers from hon. Members about the use by doctors of deputising services which, under the present provision, the National Health Service authorities have no locus to investigate. That was the point made by my hon. Friend when he talked about vicarious responsibility, which is difficult to define, but which perhaps could best be described as relating to employees. As general practitioners are not employees but are contracted to the NHS, there are certain difficulties in imposing what is loosely described as vicarious responsibility.
There is a difference between England and Wales and Scotland in this respect. A general practitioner in England and Wales has written into his contract that he or she is responsible for the actions of anyone he or she engages in fulfilling his or her contract.
The complaints to which I have referred arise in a variety of circumstances. In some instances the problem stems from difficulties in communication, either because the patient does not know what steps to take to secure medical help in the absence of his or her own doctor, or because it can be hard to convey to a strange doctor, unfamiliar with the patient, the precise nature of the medical emergency. Complaints have also been received about delay, sometimes extensive, in the response to an emergency summons, and about the adequacy of the service to cope with the work involved. A further source of concern is the lack of any means of investigation or redress in respect of particular complaints. My hon. Friend highlighted the feeling that Mrs. Still must have in respect of her inability to gain redress in respect of her complaint and the grievances that she feels she has.
Opinions differ as to whether deputising services are a desirable or undesirable development. Their protagonists argue that since general practitioners are independent contractors, they must have the right to arrange for the treatment of their patients and the organisation of their practices as they see fit. They contend that in an emergency a patient—or his relatives—does not necessarily want his


own doctor, provided that a doctor is available.
Be that as it may, it cannot be satisfactory that patients may not know, or have any means of knowing, whether their doctor hands over all or any of his out-of-hours calls. In the stress of explaining an emergency to an unfamiliar and, to judge by some of the complaints received, unsympathetic voice, they may fail to transmit the important features of the emergency.
In many ways this deals with the point my hon. Friend was making about diagnosis by telephone. I find it difficult at times to understand how any doctor could give a diagnosis by telephone if he or she is not in possession of the background knowledge of the patient. My hon. Friend made telling points which I hope will be taken note of in the right quarters.
My hon. Friend will be glad to know, however, that negotiations on the central issue which he raises are in train between my Department and the representatives of the profession, and accordingly I do not wish to take up too rigid a stance on this occasion. I should, however, make it clear that in the Government's view patients register with doctors on the understanding that the doctor has contracted with the health board to provide the services stipulated in the National Health Service regulations. The doctors cannot, with any moral justification, claim an unfettered right to sub-contract the provision of these servives to others with whom the health board has no contractual link and for whose treatment the doctor, in the event of a complaint, cannot be called to account by the board.
We recognise, of course, that doctors require time off for study and for recreation and that in some cases this can be achieved only by the use of deputising services. But we are concerned that this should be done in a responsible way and within defined limits, which we hope can be agreed with the profession during the course of discussions and negotiations in which we are involved.
In that context I should say that we have had every co-operation from the British Medical Association in the setting of acceptable standards, and indeed we know it is as anxious as we are to see

regulations introduced governing that aspect of the matter. There remains to be settled, however, the question of the use which doctors may reasonably make of the deputising services. Negotiations about this are continuing. In the particular case to which my hon. Friend referred, the family's own doctor was reported as saying that, had he received the phone call, he would probably have acted similarly and prescribed by telephone.
But at least he would have had the benefit of some knowledge of his patient and her family, whereas the deputy had none. Whether, had she been seen earlier, Miss Still's life could have been saved is a question to which we can never know the answer, but her bereaved family would not have been left with the distressing thought that earlier attention might have resulted in a different outcome.
With all these considerations in mind I share the concern which has been expressed that the use of deputising services should be brought under the control of the National Health Service, and that such use be sanctioned only where the health board is satisfied that the standards observed by the particular agency are acceptable to the board.
Perhaps one further point I should make, to avoid confusion, is that what is popularly known as the "emergency doctor service" is not an emergency service provided by the National Health Service, but a privately organised service providing out-of-hours deputies to doctors on payment of a fee. Therefore, patients requiring a doctor out of hours should contact their own doctor. The onus is on him to have these patients referred to any other doctor acting for him. In the event of difficulty in securing the attendance of a doctor, any doctor practising in the area and who is available can be called upon in an emergency to a patient whose own doctor is not available.
The relationship between a doctor and his or her patient is very sensitive. I am sure that my hon. Friend will share with me the wish that nothing that we say—myself as Minister and my hon. Friend as instigating the debate—should disturb that sensitive relationship. By far the vast majority of patients throughout the country place great stress on their faith


in their doctors and the relationship to which I have referred.
The general practitioner's job is not particularly attractive. It does not have the attractiveness of the acute specialities to which many consultants are attracted. Often the general practitioner's work is mundane, but he does it well.
General practitioners do not need any tribute from me, but it is right and proper in this debate to place on record our appreciation of the invaluable work that they carry out. They are held in the highest regard by the overwhelming majority of their patients. That is a much better testimony to the regard in which they are held than any tribute that I can pay to them.

This has been a very important debate, because it has given the Government an opportunity to air their concern about the deputising service. It has also given me the opportunity to inform my hon. Friend and other hon. Members present of the negotiations which are proceeding to seek to resolve the problems surrounding the service.
For those reasons. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue tonight. I hope that what I have said has helped to clarify the issues and will assist towards the resolution of a long outstanding problem.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Six o'clock a.m.